Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Angry White Man: The bigoted past of Ron Paul
Agreed the Texas brand of Libertarians tends to fall in the ron Paul camp as far as I can tell. Now, that said, I've only know ten or twelve so that could be the area I live in. my thanks to James for the breakdown as well B --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > and my experience--growing up in Texas, now living in Georgia--has > been just the opposite > > -- Original message -- > From: "Tracey de Morsella (formerly Tracey L. Minor)" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > James thanks for this lesson on Libertarians. When I lived in > Philly, I > never encountered the Ron Paul type of libertarian-- in fact, I > found I > liked most that I encountered. So, finding out that there were > legions > like Ron Paul was a shock. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Good questions Keith. > > > > Part of it may be where you live and a large part of it is our > lazy > > American media. Paleos and Neos tend to live in southern states > and are > > often former Republicans. Problem is - few really completely > leave the > > GOP. They are LINO's (Libertarians in Name Only) and they are a > very loud > > bunch of know-it-alls who trash liberals nonstop but make excuses > for > > conservatives without end. Trouble is, when pushed to define the > > underlying concept of libertarianism - they can't or won't. When > asked to > > help fight things like the PATRIOT Act, domestic surveillance, > > imperialism, electoral fraud, etc. they are completely AWOL. > > > > Another part of the problem is our useless, lazy Mainstream Media > that > > compartmentalizes and oversimplifies everything. Political > terminiologies > > have lost most of their meaning in recent years due to such > laziness. > > Every Democrat is a liberal and every Republican a conservative > and all > > libertarians are wingnuts. > > > > Case in point: Dennis Miller, Larry Elder and Neil Boortz. > Neither of > > whom are genuine libertarians - especially Boortz and Miller who > turned > > into raging neo-conservatives on September 11, 2001. All three > are > > conservatives with SOME extremely limited libertarian leanings. > Of > > course, that doesn't stop our lazy MSM from constantly labeling > them as > > such. > > > > Hell, this is the same MSM that refers to Shakira as the "latin > Madonna." > > The MSM that ignored the piles and piles and piles of evidence > that > > pointed out Colin Powell's lies in front of Congress and the U.N. > during > > the buildup to the Iraq war. The same MSM that thinks only young, > white > > (sometimes pregnant) women going missing in this country. > > > > The MSM barely acknowledges differences within the Democratic and > > Republican Parties either. > > > > When is the last time you heard a Democrat referred to as a > Yellow Dog, > > Blue Dog or Progressive - other than on the ridiculous Sunday > morning talk > > shows? All Democrats are liberals on TV and in general print > media. Is > > Joseph Lieberman really a liberal? What about Ben Nelson? > > > > How much TV time do moderates like Chuck Hagel and Olympia Snowe > get > > compared to Trent Lott and Mitch McConnell? In the eyes of the > MSM all > > Republicans are conservatives who support Bush and love the wars > in Iraq > > and Afghanistan - which MSM hype helped create and prolong. > > > > Sorry, I went off in left field for a while. Did I even come > close to > > answering your questions? > > > > __ > > James Landrith > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > cell: 703-593-2065 * fax: 760-875-8547 > > AIM: jlnales * ICQ: 148600159 > > MSN and Yahoo! Messenger: jlandrith > > http://www.linkedin.com/in/jlandrith > > http://www.jameslandrith.com > > http://www.multiracial.com > > http://www.multiracial.com/abolitionist/ > > __ > > > > > > > >> good points, James. And thanks for keeping me honest and > accurate. I > >> should have more specifically specified that it's one type of > Libertarian > >> that bothers me, which is what I meant by the ones I've > encountered here > >> in Georgia. > >> > >> Still, to be frank, despite my knowing that there are more > liberal > >> Libertarians--just like there are in many other groups--my > exposure has > >> been more to the Ron Paul type, both in person, and in those > Libertarians > >> I've heard on TV and the radio. > >> > >> Why do you think it is I hear so few with attitudes like you? Is > it where > >> I live? > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > I got friends who are in prison and Friends who are dead. I'm gonna tell ya something that I've often said. You know these things that happen, That's just the way it's supposed to be. And I can't help but wonder, Don't ya know it coulda been me. _
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Angry White Man: The bigoted past of Ron Paul
and my experience--growing up in Texas, now living in Georgia--has been just the opposite -- Original message -- From: "Tracey de Morsella (formerly Tracey L. Minor)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> James thanks for this lesson on Libertarians. When I lived in Philly, I never encountered the Ron Paul type of libertarian-- in fact, I found I liked most that I encountered. So, finding out that there were legions like Ron Paul was a shock. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Good questions Keith. > > Part of it may be where you live and a large part of it is our lazy > American media. Paleos and Neos tend to live in southern states and are > often former Republicans. Problem is - few really completely leave the > GOP. They are LINO's (Libertarians in Name Only) and they are a very loud > bunch of know-it-alls who trash liberals nonstop but make excuses for > conservatives without end. Trouble is, when pushed to define the > underlying concept of libertarianism - they can't or won't. When asked to > help fight things like the PATRIOT Act, domestic surveillance, > imperialism, electoral fraud, etc. they are completely AWOL. > > Another part of the problem is our useless, lazy Mainstream Media that > compartmentalizes and oversimplifies everything. Political terminiologies > have lost most of their meaning in recent years due to such laziness. > Every Democrat is a liberal and every Republican a conservative and all > libertarians are wingnuts. > > Case in point: Dennis Miller, Larry Elder and Neil Boortz. Neither of > whom are genuine libertarians - especially Boortz and Miller who turned > into raging neo-conservatives on September 11, 2001. All three are > conservatives with SOME extremely limited libertarian leanings. Of > course, that doesn't stop our lazy MSM from constantly labeling them as > such. > > Hell, this is the same MSM that refers to Shakira as the "latin Madonna." > The MSM that ignored the piles and piles and piles of evidence that > pointed out Colin Powell's lies in front of Congress and the U.N. during > the buildup to the Iraq war. The same MSM that thinks only young, white > (sometimes pregnant) women going missing in this country. > > The MSM barely acknowledges differences within the Democratic and > Republican Parties either. > > When is the last time you heard a Democrat referred to as a Yellow Dog, > Blue Dog or Progressive - other than on the ridiculous Sunday morning talk > shows? All Democrats are liberals on TV and in general print media. Is > Joseph Lieberman really a liberal? What about Ben Nelson? > > How much TV time do moderates like Chuck Hagel and Olympia Snowe get > compared to Trent Lott and Mitch McConnell? In the eyes of the MSM all > Republicans are conservatives who support Bush and love the wars in Iraq > and Afghanistan - which MSM hype helped create and prolong. > > Sorry, I went off in left field for a while. Did I even come close to > answering your questions? > > __ > James Landrith > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > cell: 703-593-2065 * fax: 760-875-8547 > AIM: jlnales * ICQ: 148600159 > MSN and Yahoo! Messenger: jlandrith > http://www.linkedin.com/in/jlandrith > http://www.jameslandrith.com > http://www.multiracial.com > http://www.multiracial.com/abolitionist/ > __ > > > >> good points, James. And thanks for keeping me honest and accurate. I >> should have more specifically specified that it's one type of Libertarian >> that bothers me, which is what I meant by the ones I've encountered here >> in Georgia. >> >> Still, to be frank, despite my knowing that there are more liberal >> Libertarians--just like there are in many other groups--my exposure has >> been more to the Ron Paul type, both in person, and in those Libertarians >> I've heard on TV and the radio. >> >> Why do you think it is I hear so few with attitudes like you? Is it where >> I live? >> >> > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Angry White Man: The bigoted past of Ron Paul
James thanks for this lesson on Libertarians. When I lived in Philly, I never encountered the Ron Paul type of libertarian-- in fact, I found I liked most that I encountered. So, finding out that there were legions like Ron Paul was a shock. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Good questions Keith. > > Part of it may be where you live and a large part of it is our lazy > American media. Paleos and Neos tend to live in southern states and are > often former Republicans. Problem is - few really completely leave the > GOP. They are LINO's (Libertarians in Name Only) and they are a very loud > bunch of know-it-alls who trash liberals nonstop but make excuses for > conservatives without end. Trouble is, when pushed to define the > underlying concept of libertarianism - they can't or won't. When asked to > help fight things like the PATRIOT Act, domestic surveillance, > imperialism, electoral fraud, etc. they are completely AWOL. > > Another part of the problem is our useless, lazy Mainstream Media that > compartmentalizes and oversimplifies everything. Political terminiologies > have lost most of their meaning in recent years due to such laziness. > Every Democrat is a liberal and every Republican a conservative and all > libertarians are wingnuts. > > Case in point: Dennis Miller, Larry Elder and Neil Boortz. Neither of > whom are genuine libertarians - especially Boortz and Miller who turned > into raging neo-conservatives on September 11, 2001. All three are > conservatives with SOME extremely limited libertarian leanings. Of > course, that doesn't stop our lazy MSM from constantly labeling them as > such. > > Hell, this is the same MSM that refers to Shakira as the "latin Madonna." > The MSM that ignored the piles and piles and piles of evidence that > pointed out Colin Powell's lies in front of Congress and the U.N. during > the buildup to the Iraq war. The same MSM that thinks only young, white > (sometimes pregnant) women going missing in this country. > > The MSM barely acknowledges differences within the Democratic and > Republican Parties either. > > When is the last time you heard a Democrat referred to as a Yellow Dog, > Blue Dog or Progressive - other than on the ridiculous Sunday morning talk > shows? All Democrats are liberals on TV and in general print media. Is > Joseph Lieberman really a liberal? What about Ben Nelson? > > How much TV time do moderates like Chuck Hagel and Olympia Snowe get > compared to Trent Lott and Mitch McConnell? In the eyes of the MSM all > Republicans are conservatives who support Bush and love the wars in Iraq > and Afghanistan - which MSM hype helped create and prolong. > > Sorry, I went off in left field for a while. Did I even come close to > answering your questions? > > __ > James Landrith > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > cell: 703-593-2065 * fax: 760-875-8547 > AIM: jlnales * ICQ: 148600159 > MSN and Yahoo! Messenger: jlandrith > http://www.linkedin.com/in/jlandrith > http://www.jameslandrith.com > http://www.multiracial.com > http://www.multiracial.com/abolitionist/ > __ > > > >> good points, James. And thanks for keeping me honest and accurate. I >> should have more specifically specified that it's one type of Libertarian >> that bothers me, which is what I meant by the ones I've encountered here >> in Georgia. >> >> Still, to be frank, despite my knowing that there are more liberal >> Libertarians--just like there are in many other groups--my exposure has >> been more to the Ron Paul type, both in person, and in those Libertarians >> I've heard on TV and the radio. >> >> Why do you think it is I hear so few with attitudes like you? Is it where >> I live? >> >> > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Angry White Man: The bigoted past of Ron Paul
(standing ovation) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Good questions Keith. Part of it may be where you live and a large part of it is our lazy American media. Paleos and Neos tend to live in southern states and are often former Republicans. Problem is - few really completely leave the GOP. They are LINO's (Libertarians in Name Only) and they are a very loud bunch of know-it-alls who trash liberals nonstop but make excuses for conservatives without end. Trouble is, when pushed to define the underlying concept of libertarianism - they can't or won't. When asked to help fight things like the PATRIOT Act, domestic surveillance, imperialism, electoral fraud, etc. they are completely AWOL. Another part of the problem is our useless, lazy Mainstream Media that compartmentalizes and oversimplifies everything. Political terminiologies have lost most of their meaning in recent years due to such laziness. Every Democrat is a liberal and every Republican a conservative and all libertarians are wingnuts. Case in point: Dennis Miller, Larry Elder and Neil Boortz. Neither of whom are genuine libertarians - especially Boortz and Miller who turned into raging neo-conservatives on September 11, 2001. All three are conservatives with SOME extremely limited libertarian leanings. Of course, that doesn't stop our lazy MSM from constantly labeling them as such. Hell, this is the same MSM that refers to Shakira as the "latin Madonna." The MSM that ignored the piles and piles and piles of evidence that pointed out Colin Powell's lies in front of Congress and the U.N. during the buildup to the Iraq war. The same MSM that thinks only young, white (sometimes pregnant) women going missing in this country. The MSM barely acknowledges differences within the Democratic and Republican Parties either. When is the last time you heard a Democrat referred to as a Yellow Dog, Blue Dog or Progressive - other than on the ridiculous Sunday morning talk shows? All Democrats are liberals on TV and in general print media. Is Joseph Lieberman really a liberal? What about Ben Nelson? How much TV time do moderates like Chuck Hagel and Olympia Snowe get compared to Trent Lott and Mitch McConnell? In the eyes of the MSM all Republicans are conservatives who support Bush and love the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - which MSM hype helped create and prolong. Sorry, I went off in left field for a while. Did I even come close to answering your questions? __ James Landrith [EMAIL PROTECTED] cell: 703-593-2065 * fax: 760-875-8547 AIM: jlnales * ICQ: 148600159 MSN and Yahoo! Messenger: jlandrith http://www.linkedin.com/in/jlandrith http://www.jameslandrith.com http://www.multiracial.com http://www.multiracial.com/abolitionist/ __ > good points, James. And thanks for keeping me honest and accurate. I > should have more specifically specified that it's one type of Libertarian > that bothers me, which is what I meant by the ones I've encountered here > in Georgia. > > Still, to be frank, despite my knowing that there are more liberal > Libertarians--just like there are in many other groups--my exposure has > been more to the Ron Paul type, both in person, and in those Libertarians > I've heard on TV and the radio. > > Why do you think it is I hear so few with attitudes like you? Is it where > I live? > "There is no reason Good can't triumph over Evil, if only angels will get organized along the lines of the Mafia." -Kurt Vonnegut, "A Man Without A Country" - Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Angry White Man: The bigoted past of Ron Paul
You answered it right on. For the last several years I've noticed that the people I hear who claim to be Libertarian--and I didn't mention Neal Boortz, though i was thinking of him, 'cause I wasn't sure you'd heard of him--have gotten more conversative, and, frankly, more racist sounding. Boortz is on the radio here in Georgia, of course, and all my ultra-conservative, Iraq-"war" supporting co-workers love him. Since my co-workers and I can barely discuss the color of the sky without an argument, their love of Boortz and others like that only fed my perceptions of what a Libertarian had become. I read and hear of a lot of Libertarians who sound like nothing more than backwoods racist survivalists who think that people of color, the government, women, and the UN are the root of all the world's problems. Not kidding when I say this is the same mindset I encounter sometimes among fantasy fans who seem to pine for a world where barbarian white men lord over women and other races. As for the media, you are definitely right on there as well. It's so much more about shouting, sensationalism, and putting forth young hot anchors nowadays, we rarely get truly informative programs on that end. -- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Good questions Keith. Part of it may be where you live and a large part of it is our lazy American media. Paleos and Neos tend to live in southern states and are often former Republicans. Problem is - few really completely leave the GOP. They are LINO's (Libertarians in Name Only) and they are a very loud bunch of know-it-alls who trash liberals nonstop but make excuses for conservatives without end. Trouble is, when pushed to define the underlying concept of libertarianism - they can't or won't. When asked to help fight things like the PATRIOT Act, domestic surveillance, imperialism, electoral fraud, etc. they are completely AWOL. Another part of the problem is our useless, lazy Mainstream Media that compartmentalizes and oversimplifies everything. Political terminiologies have lost most of their meaning in recent years due to such laziness. Every Democrat is a liberal and every Republican a conservative and all libertarians are wingnuts. Case in point: Dennis Miller, Larry Elder and Neil Boortz. Neither of whom are genuine libertarians - especially Boortz and Miller who turned into raging neo-conservatives on September 11, 2001. All three are conservatives with SOME extremely limited libertarian leanings. Of course, that doesn't stop our lazy MSM from constantly labeling them as such. Hell, this is the same MSM that refers to Shakira as the "latin Madonna." The MSM that ignored the piles and piles and piles of evidence that pointed out Colin Powell's lies in front of Congress and the U.N. during the buildup to the Iraq war. The same MSM that thinks only young, white (sometimes pregnant) women going missing in this country. The MSM barely acknowledges differences within the Democratic and Republican Parties either. When is the last time you heard a Democrat referred to as a Yellow Dog, Blue Dog or Progressive - other than on the ridiculous Sunday morning talk shows? All Democrats are liberals on TV and in general print media. Is Joseph Lieberman really a liberal? What about Ben Nelson? How much TV time do moderates like Chuck Hagel and Olympia Snowe get compared to Trent Lott and Mitch McConnell? In the eyes of the MSM all Republicans are conservatives who support Bush and love the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - which MSM hype helped create and prolong. Sorry, I went off in left field for a while. Did I even come close to answering your questions? __ James Landrith [EMAIL PROTECTED] cell: 703-593-2065 * fax: 760-875-8547 AIM: jlnales * ICQ: 148600159 MSN and Yahoo! Messenger: jlandrith http://www.linkedin.com/in/jlandrith http://www.jameslandrith.com http://www.multiracial.com http://www.multiracial.com/abolitionist/ __ > good points, James. And thanks for keeping me honest and accurate. I > should have more specifically specified that it's one type of Libertarian > that bothers me, which is what I meant by the ones I've encountered here > in Georgia. > > Still, to be frank, despite my knowing that there are more liberal > Libertarians--just like there are in many other groups--my exposure has > been more to the Ron Paul type, both in person, and in those Libertarians > I've heard on TV and the radio. > > Why do you think it is I hear so few with attitudes like you? Is it where > I live? > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Angry White Man: The bigoted past of Ron Paul
Yeah, I'm not excited about the two-party system. I also find the idea of a prime minister vs. popularity contest president appealing. Both parties are actively working together to keep third parties from challenging their dominance. A "major party" status in some states means that Democrats and Republicans only have to achieve 5,000 signatures to get a candidate on a ballot, while a third party candidate has to spend tons of cash to get 25,000 signatures to get on the same ballot. That's one example of thousands how the two major parties conspire to maintain their grip on power. The electoral college is another example of how the system is rigged. Further many of the more obscure parts of McCain-Feingold (more appropriately name the Incumbent Protection Act) exist to make well-funded third party candidates less likely and prevent such threats to their power. I'll add more later. But yes, I agree the two major parties need to be forced into a position where they HAVE to deal with smaller, organized groups in order to govern I'm just not exactly sure how we pull that off. __ James Landrith [EMAIL PROTECTED] cell: 703-593-2065 * fax: 760-875-8547 AIM: jlnales * ICQ: 148600159 MSN and Yahoo! Messenger: jlandrith http://www.linkedin.com/in/jlandrith http://www.jameslandrith.com http://www.multiracial.com http://www.multiracial.com/abolitionist/ __ > Great summary, thanks for educating me on an area where I wasn't all that > well informed. > Reading your thoughts below, i see yet another example of how the two main > parties leech off and absorb so many ideas that smaller groups have. How > do you feel about the concept of a multi-party system in America? Think it > could help by making larger parties have to form coalitions with small but > strong groups? Is America even capable of supporting such a system? > > The older I get, the more it just seems wrong that everyone in this > country is pretty much forced to always choose between two sides. >
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Angry White Man: The bigoted past of Ron Paul
Good questions Keith. Part of it may be where you live and a large part of it is our lazy American media. Paleos and Neos tend to live in southern states and are often former Republicans. Problem is - few really completely leave the GOP. They are LINO's (Libertarians in Name Only) and they are a very loud bunch of know-it-alls who trash liberals nonstop but make excuses for conservatives without end. Trouble is, when pushed to define the underlying concept of libertarianism - they can't or won't. When asked to help fight things like the PATRIOT Act, domestic surveillance, imperialism, electoral fraud, etc. they are completely AWOL. Another part of the problem is our useless, lazy Mainstream Media that compartmentalizes and oversimplifies everything. Political terminiologies have lost most of their meaning in recent years due to such laziness. Every Democrat is a liberal and every Republican a conservative and all libertarians are wingnuts. Case in point: Dennis Miller, Larry Elder and Neil Boortz. Neither of whom are genuine libertarians - especially Boortz and Miller who turned into raging neo-conservatives on September 11, 2001. All three are conservatives with SOME extremely limited libertarian leanings. Of course, that doesn't stop our lazy MSM from constantly labeling them as such. Hell, this is the same MSM that refers to Shakira as the "latin Madonna." The MSM that ignored the piles and piles and piles of evidence that pointed out Colin Powell's lies in front of Congress and the U.N. during the buildup to the Iraq war. The same MSM that thinks only young, white (sometimes pregnant) women going missing in this country. The MSM barely acknowledges differences within the Democratic and Republican Parties either. When is the last time you heard a Democrat referred to as a Yellow Dog, Blue Dog or Progressive - other than on the ridiculous Sunday morning talk shows? All Democrats are liberals on TV and in general print media. Is Joseph Lieberman really a liberal? What about Ben Nelson? How much TV time do moderates like Chuck Hagel and Olympia Snowe get compared to Trent Lott and Mitch McConnell? In the eyes of the MSM all Republicans are conservatives who support Bush and love the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - which MSM hype helped create and prolong. Sorry, I went off in left field for a while. Did I even come close to answering your questions? __ James Landrith [EMAIL PROTECTED] cell: 703-593-2065 * fax: 760-875-8547 AIM: jlnales * ICQ: 148600159 MSN and Yahoo! Messenger: jlandrith http://www.linkedin.com/in/jlandrith http://www.jameslandrith.com http://www.multiracial.com http://www.multiracial.com/abolitionist/ __ > good points, James. And thanks for keeping me honest and accurate. I > should have more specifically specified that it's one type of Libertarian > that bothers me, which is what I meant by the ones I've encountered here > in Georgia. > > Still, to be frank, despite my knowing that there are more liberal > Libertarians--just like there are in many other groups--my exposure has > been more to the Ron Paul type, both in person, and in those Libertarians > I've heard on TV and the radio. > > Why do you think it is I hear so few with attitudes like you? Is it where > I live? >
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Angry White Man: The bigoted past of Ron Paul
good points, James. And thanks for keeping me honest and accurate. I should have more specifically specified that it's one type of Libertarian that bothers me, which is what I meant by the ones I've encountered here in Georgia. Still, to be frank, despite my knowing that there are more liberal Libertarians--just like there are in many other groups--my exposure has been more to the Ron Paul type, both in person, and in those Libertarians I've heard on TV and the radio. Why do you think it is I hear so few with attitudes like you? Is it where I live? -- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] As someone who has been involved with the libertarian movement for about a decade, I can shed a little light on things. Like the Democratic Party and Republican Party - there are many factions constituting the Libertarian Party and libertarianism in general. There are libertarians, neo-libertarians, left-libertarians, paleo-libertarians and Randites who are different, clashing factions. Neo-libertarians are closet conservative ass-clowns who endlessly rail on about socialist Democrats, yet constantly make excuses for the behaviours of Republicans. They tend to like big wars and trust damned near anything Republicans do except when they spend large amounts of money (i.e., the PATRIOT Act is okay, but Medicare Part D is the worst thing that ever happened to this country, etc.) Otherwise, they are generally conservatives. Left-libertarians (like me) tend to be completely disgusted with both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. Many are anarchistic in nature or leaning that direction. Some of us (myself included) participate in the Democratic Freedom Caucus a libertarian caucus within the Democratic Party and the LP Radical Caucus. We tend to be the civil liberties guardians and more prone to beat up on the GOP more consistently than other libertarian factions. Randites, also known as Randroids, are fellow travelers with neo-libertarians and sometimes paleo-libertarians, depending on the issue. They've read all of Ayn's books and essays and take a lot of her work out of context or just plain Go. Too. Far. They are NOT libertarians, but are often confused as such, given they share many of the same beliefs. In general, the more one is exposed to this mindset, the more it appears to be cultish in nature and their stances based more on emotion than logic. Paleo-libertarians tend to be the anti-abortion rights, anti-gay rights, anti-immigration (at least as far as Latinos go) race-baiting types who are often involved in skin color collectivism or excuse-making for religious right types. They are the closest thing to the religious right within the libertarian movement. The guys you find running around in the woods of Georgia playing militia, and in love with their weapons, worshiping the confederacy, tend to be paleo-libertarians - not run-of-the-mill libertarians. While they sometimes are on the right side of an issue they are just as often out in right field or prone to wingnuttery - like obsessing over the gold standard. Ron Paul is a paleo-libertarian. While he is right on the war, U.S. imperialism, the PATRIOT Act and domestic surveillance, he is wrong on abortion, homosexual rights, and immigration. Not to mention his old newsletter. The newsletter articles had been rumoured for years - though not circulated in recent years to my knowledge. The exposure given this issue by investigative bloggers and journalists during this campaign was the first most of us who in the latter day libertarian movement have had to actual proof of the articles racist content. Disturbing shit. Paul has had decades to reveal who actually wrote those articles and out the individual(s). My money says it was Lew Rockwell or one of his people. Instead, for years Paul has made no apologies and/or feeble apologies without naming names of his ghostwriter(s). I was never a Paul fan - based on his abortion and homosexuality stances. The confirmation of the newsletter rumours has not improved his standing in my eyes. Nor has it impressed and endeared him in the eyes of rank and file libertarians. The movement has long been under siege by conservatives who are tired of losing elections via LP spoiler candidates. Bob Barr is one such individual who lost his seat in Congress due to an LP candidate who covered the margin between him and his Democratic opponent. Many LP members are defecting or dropping out of electoral politics altogether in disgust. Further, the LP platform was gutted by a neo-libertarian takeover of the national committee in 2004. Since then, the party has been turning into Republican-lite. If the LP Radical Caucus (of which I am a member) is not able to turn things back around at this year's national convention, I fear the GOP takeover of the LP will be complete. But that means the party will be have been co-opted, not the ideology. Unfortunately, the term "libertarian" is rap
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Angry White Man: The bigoted past of Ron Paul
Great summary, thanks for educating me on an area where I wasn't all that well informed. Reading your thoughts below, i see yet another example of how the two main parties leech off and absorb so many ideas that smaller groups have. How do you feel about the concept of a multi-party system in America? Think it could help by making larger parties have to form coalitions with small but strong groups? Is America even capable of supporting such a system? The older I get, the more it just seems wrong that everyone in this country is pretty much forced to always choose between two sides. -- Original message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] As someone who has been involved with the libertarian movement for about a decade, I can shed a little light on things. Like the Democratic Party and Republican Party - there are many factions constituting the Libertarian Party and libertarianism in general. There are libertarians, neo-libertarians, left-libertarians, paleo-libertarians and Randites who are different, clashing factions. Neo-libertarians are closet conservative ass-clowns who endlessly rail on about socialist Democrats, yet constantly make excuses for the behaviours of Republicans. They tend to like big wars and trust damned near anything Republicans do except when they spend large amounts of money (i.e., the PATRIOT Act is okay, but Medicare Part D is the worst thing that ever happened to this country, etc.) Otherwise, they are generally conservatives. Left-libertarians (like me) tend to be completely disgusted with both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. Many are anarchistic in nature or leaning that direction. Some of us (myself included) participate in the Democratic Freedom Caucus a libertarian caucus within the Democratic Party and the LP Radical Caucus. We tend to be the civil liberties guardians and more prone to beat up on the GOP more consistently than other libertarian factions. Randites, also known as Randroids, are fellow travelers with neo-libertarians and sometimes paleo-libertarians, depending on the issue. They've read all of Ayn's books and essays and take a lot of her work out of context or just plain Go. Too. Far. They are NOT libertarians, but are often confused as such, given they share many of the same beliefs. In general, the more one is exposed to this mindset, the more it appears to be cultish in nature and their stances based more on emotion than logic. Paleo-libertarians tend to be the anti-abortion rights, anti-gay rights, anti-immigration (at least as far as Latinos go) race-baiting types who are often involved in skin color collectivism or excuse-making for religious right types. They are the closest thing to the religious right within the libertarian movement. The guys you find running around in the woods of Georgia playing militia, and in love with their weapons, worshiping the confederacy, tend to be paleo-libertarians - not run-of-the-mill libertarians. While they sometimes are on the right side of an issue they are just as often out in right field or prone to wingnuttery - like obsessing over the gold standard. Ron Paul is a paleo-libertarian. While he is right on the war, U.S. imperialism, the PATRIOT Act and domestic surveillance, he is wrong on abortion, homosexual rights, and immigration. Not to mention his old newsletter. The newsletter articles had been rumoured for years - though not circulated in recent years to my knowledge. The exposure given this issue by investigative bloggers and journalists during this campaign was the first most of us who in the latter day libertarian movement have had to actual proof of the articles racist content. Disturbing shit. Paul has had decades to reveal who actually wrote those articles and out the individual(s). My money says it was Lew Rockwell or one of his people. Instead, for years Paul has made no apologies and/or feeble apologies without naming names of his ghostwriter(s). I was never a Paul fan - based on his abortion and homosexuality stances. The confirmation of the newsletter rumours has not improved his standing in my eyes. Nor has it impressed and endeared him in the eyes of rank and file libertarians. The movement has long been under siege by conservatives who are tired of losing elections via LP spoiler candidates. Bob Barr is one such individual who lost his seat in Congress due to an LP candidate who covered the margin between him and his Democratic opponent. Many LP members are defecting or dropping out of electoral politics altogether in disgust. Further, the LP platform was gutted by a neo-libertarian takeover of the national committee in 2004. Since then, the party has been turning into Republican-lite. If the LP Radical Caucus (of which I am a member) is not able to turn things back around at this year's national convention, I fear the GOP takeover of the LP will be complete. But that means the party will be have been co-opted, not the ideology. Unfortunately
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Angry White Man: The bigoted past of Ron Paul
As someone who has been involved with the libertarian movement for about a decade, I can shed a little light on things. Like the Democratic Party and Republican Party - there are many factions constituting the Libertarian Party and libertarianism in general. There are libertarians, neo-libertarians, left-libertarians, paleo-libertarians and Randites who are different, clashing factions. Neo-libertarians are closet conservative ass-clowns who endlessly rail on about socialist Democrats, yet constantly make excuses for the behaviours of Republicans. They tend to like big wars and trust damned near anything Republicans do except when they spend large amounts of money (i.e., the PATRIOT Act is okay, but Medicare Part D is the worst thing that ever happened to this country, etc.) Otherwise, they are generally conservatives. Left-libertarians (like me) tend to be completely disgusted with both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. Many are anarchistic in nature or leaning that direction. Some of us (myself included) participate in the Democratic Freedom Caucus a libertarian caucus within the Democratic Party and the LP Radical Caucus. We tend to be the civil liberties guardians and more prone to beat up on the GOP more consistently than other libertarian factions. Randites, also known as Randroids, are fellow travelers with neo-libertarians and sometimes paleo-libertarians, depending on the issue. They've read all of Ayn's books and essays and take a lot of her work out of context or just plain Go. Too. Far. They are NOT libertarians, but are often confused as such, given they share many of the same beliefs. In general, the more one is exposed to this mindset, the more it appears to be cultish in nature and their stances based more on emotion than logic. Paleo-libertarians tend to be the anti-abortion rights, anti-gay rights, anti-immigration (at least as far as Latinos go) race-baiting types who are often involved in skin color collectivism or excuse-making for religious right types. They are the closest thing to the religious right within the libertarian movement. The guys you find running around in the woods of Georgia playing militia, and in love with their weapons, worshiping the confederacy, tend to be paleo-libertarians - not run-of-the-mill libertarians. While they sometimes are on the right side of an issue they are just as often out in right field or prone to wingnuttery - like obsessing over the gold standard. Ron Paul is a paleo-libertarian. While he is right on the war, U.S. imperialism, the PATRIOT Act and domestic surveillance, he is wrong on abortion, homosexual rights, and immigration. Not to mention his old newsletter. The newsletter articles had been rumoured for years - though not circulated in recent years to my knowledge. The exposure given this issue by investigative bloggers and journalists during this campaign was the first most of us who in the latter day libertarian movement have had to actual proof of the articles racist content. Disturbing shit. Paul has had decades to reveal who actually wrote those articles and out the individual(s). My money says it was Lew Rockwell or one of his people. Instead, for years Paul has made no apologies and/or feeble apologies without naming names of his ghostwriter(s). I was never a Paul fan - based on his abortion and homosexuality stances. The confirmation of the newsletter rumours has not improved his standing in my eyes. Nor has it impressed and endeared him in the eyes of rank and file libertarians. The movement has long been under siege by conservatives who are tired of losing elections via LP spoiler candidates. Bob Barr is one such individual who lost his seat in Congress due to an LP candidate who covered the margin between him and his Democratic opponent. Many LP members are defecting or dropping out of electoral politics altogether in disgust. Further, the LP platform was gutted by a neo-libertarian takeover of the national committee in 2004. Since then, the party has been turning into Republican-lite. If the LP Radical Caucus (of which I am a member) is not able to turn things back around at this year's national convention, I fear the GOP takeover of the LP will be complete. But that means the party will be have been co-opted, not the ideology. Unfortunately, the term "libertarian" is rapidly losing it's meaning due to disaffected conservatives now calling themselves libertarians - when in really most of them are not interested in libertarianism, just in differentiating themselves from the neo-cons currently running the GOP. Of course, this is not much different from the near merger of the GOP and Democratic Party over the last 25 years. A few major issues still separate them, but increasingly less over time. __ James Landrith [EMAIL PROTECTED] cell: 703-593-2065 * fax: 760-875-8547 AIM: jlnales * ICQ: 148600159 MSN and Yahoo!
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Angry White Man: The bigoted past of Ron Paul
George, it used to be that way here. I think that Democrats had it changed after Cynthia McKinney got run out of office a few years back, because her district, the one I live in, covers most of Dekalb COunty and part of Gwinnett County. The former is majority Black (last census, Whites were 8% of the population), while Gwinnett is about 89% White. The White voters there, worried about the prospects of a maverick like McKinney goign back to D.C. uncontested didn't sit well with them, so the majority-GOP voters turned out in droves in the primary to vote for McKinney's lesser-known Democratic opponent, a centrist DeKalb County judge. McKinney was sent packing. g123curious <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This was changed in Massachusetts. You can vote any way you please in the Primary on February 5th. George --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Keith, that also means that we'd have to scrap the voting system as is, get rid of voting rules like the one here in Jawja that says that you have to be GOP or Dem to vote. The Powers'll never let that fly.. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: back to my feeling we need a true multi- party system. maybe a small but viable minority could do something to get ideals like his better ones out there > > -- Original message -- > From: Daryle > > I've heard a lot of this from early in the campaign, and it's > amazing to me that the candidate that means me the least good is > the one I agree with the most out of all the available Republicans. > > What also gets me is how no one takes his good points and runs with > them. Paul's analysis of the economy is the best of all the > candidates, in either party. For the reasons described below (as > well as others), there's no way he's going to get he nomination... > so why not steal his math homework and look like a genius? > > On 1/17/08 1:15 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > wrote: > > i missed that, heard him on "Meet the PRess" saying his message had wide appeal, and, unfortunately, that included some deemed racists-- but that's not his fault or an indication of any negatives in his message. > > -- Original message -- > From: "B. Smith" > This story has been around for a while but it finally seemed to gain traction when it was published in the New Republic. > > BTW did you see him try to defend himself? According to him Dr. King and Rosa Parks were his heroes and this coming out now because it would erode the support he was getting from "the blacks." > "There is no reason Good can't triumph over Evil, if only angels will get organized along the lines of the Mafia." -Kurt Vonnegut, "A Man Without A Country" - Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Angry White Man: The bigoted past of Ron Paul
back to my feeling we need a true multi-party system. maybe a small but viable minority could do something to get ideals like his better ones out there -- Original message -- From: Daryle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I've heard a lot of this from early in the campaign, and it's amazing to me that the candidate that means me the least good is the one I agree with the most out of all the available Republicans. What also gets me is how no one takes his good points and runs with them. Paul's analysis of the economy is the best of all the candidates, in either party. For the reasons described below (as well as others), there's no way he's going to get he nomination...so why not steal his math homework and look like a genius? On 1/17/08 1:15 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > i missed that, heard him on "Meet the PRess" saying his message had wide > appeal, and, unfortunately, that included some deemed racists--but that's not > his fault or an indication of any negatives in his message. > > -- Original message -- > From: "B. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > This story has been around for a while but it finally seemed to gain > traction when it was published in the New Republic. > > BTW did you see him try to defend himself? According to him Dr. King > and Rosa Parks were his heroes and this coming out now because it > would erode the support he was getting from "the blacks." > > --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >> I called Paul a "fringe" candidate the other day for this reason. > He appeals to a lot of guys who like to call > themselves "Libertarians". Not all of them, of course, but many > Libertarians I've encountered here in Georgia have been disgruntled > white guys who seem to pine for the days when women and people of > colour knew their place. Who see the government as a giant many-armed > creature reaching in to take away their rights, their freedoms, and > their beloved guns. Who believe they can and did achieve all they > have in life by pulling up their own bootstraps. Who see things like > the UN as evil and a corrupting influence on the pure soul of America. >> >> These are the same guys I've encountered in science fiction and > fantasy discussions who are a little too pleased with Conan-type > stories where women are half-naked barbarians nonetheless subject to > men, and the bad guys are often people of color who are cowed and > killed by the white man and his noble, savage strength. These are the > guys who often pine for the "good old days" of American virtue: those > days, of course, being pre Civil Rights, and hell, pre Women's > Suffrage from what I can tell. >> >> Paul says a lot of things that make sense on the surface, but > sometimes you have to look at *why* people feel the way they do. Why > else would he have gotten so many donations from white supremacist > groups that it became a topic on "Meet The Press"? (He claims to have > given the money back). >> >> I'm not saying Paul himself is a racist--now, at least. But his > tone and tenor, his background, and the type of people he inspires > make me nervous. I take everything he says with a tablespoon of salt. >> >> And I guess this would be the downside of my call for a true multi- > party system in America, cause along with Dems and Republicans, maybe > there'd be a few seats held by the Back to Basics party, consisting > mostly of white supremacist isolationists! >> >> -- Original message -- >> From: "Tracey de Morsella (formerly Tracey L. Minor)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >>> Angry White Man: The bigoted past of Ron Paul. >>> http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15- > 4532a7da84ca >>> James Kirchick, The New Republic Published: Tuesday, January 08, > 2008 >>> >>> If you are a critic of the Bush administration, chances are that, > at >>> some point over the past six months, Ron Paul has said something > that >>> appealed to you. Paul describes himself as a libertarian, but, > since his >>> presidential campaign took off earlier this year, the Republican >>> congressman has attracted donations and plaudits from across the >>> ideological spectrum. Antiwar conservatives, disaffected > centrists, even >>> young liberal activists have all flocked to Paul, hailing him as > a >>> throwback to an earlier age, when politicians were less mealy- > mouthed >>> and American government was more modest in its ambitions, both at > home >>> and abroad. In The New York Times Magazine, conservative writer >>> Christopher Caldwell gushed that Paul is a "formidable stander on >>> constitutional principle," while The Nation wrote of "his full- > throated >>> rejection of the imperial project in Iraq." Former TNR editor > Andrew >>> Sullivan endorsed Paul for the GOP nomination, and ABC's Jake > Tapper >>> described the candidate as "the one true straight-talker in this > race." >>> Even The Wall
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Angry White Man: The bigoted past of Ron Paul
Yeh... Gimme a break, no other authors listed and regular theme of support of kkk, anti King, anti Black, anti gay rhetoric, his pix, and no disclaimers in 30 years? uh...right. B. Smith wrote: > BTW did you see him try to defend himself? According to him Dr. King > and Rosa Parks were his heroes and this coming out now because it > would erode the support he was getting from "the blacks." > > --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> I called Paul a "fringe" candidate the other day for this reason. >> > He appeals to a lot of guys who like to call > themselves "Libertarians". Not all of them, of course, but many > Libertarians I've encountered here in Georgia have been disgruntled > white guys who seem to pine for the days when women and people of > colour knew their place. Who see the government as a giant many-armed > creature reaching in to take away their rights, their freedoms, and > their beloved guns. Who believe they can and did achieve all they > have in life by pulling up their own bootstraps. Who see things like > the UN as evil and a corrupting influence on the pure soul of America. > >> These are the same guys I've encountered in science fiction and >> > fantasy discussions who are a little too pleased with Conan-type > stories where women are half-naked barbarians nonetheless subject to > men, and the bad guys are often people of color who are cowed and > killed by the white man and his noble, savage strength. These are the > guys who often pine for the "good old days" of American virtue: those > days, of course, being pre Civil Rights, and hell, pre Women's > Suffrage from what I can tell. > >> Paul says a lot of things that make sense on the surface, but >> > sometimes you have to look at *why* people feel the way they do. Why > else would he have gotten so many donations from white supremacist > groups that it became a topic on "Meet The Press"? (He claims to have > given the money back). > >> I'm not saying Paul himself is a racist--now, at least. But his >> > tone and tenor, his background, and the type of people he inspires > make me nervous. I take everything he says with a tablespoon of salt. > >> And I guess this would be the downside of my call for a true multi- >> > party system in America, cause along with Dems and Republicans, maybe > there'd be a few seats held by the Back to Basics party, consisting > mostly of white supremacist isolationists! > >> -- Original message -- >> From: "Tracey de Morsella (formerly Tracey L. Minor)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> >>> Angry White Man: The bigoted past of Ron Paul. >>> http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15- >>> > 4532a7da84ca > >>> James Kirchick, The New Republic Published: Tuesday, January 08, >>> > 2008 > >>> If you are a critic of the Bush administration, chances are that, >>> > at > >>> some point over the past six months, Ron Paul has said something >>> > that > >>> appealed to you. Paul describes himself as a libertarian, but, >>> > since his > >>> presidential campaign took off earlier this year, the Republican >>> congressman has attracted donations and plaudits from across the >>> ideological spectrum. Antiwar conservatives, disaffected >>> > centrists, even > >>> young liberal activists have all flocked to Paul, hailing him as >>> > a > >>> throwback to an earlier age, when politicians were less mealy- >>> > mouthed > >>> and American government was more modest in its ambitions, both at >>> > home > >>> and abroad. In The New York Times Magazine, conservative writer >>> Christopher Caldwell gushed that Paul is a "formidable stander on >>> constitutional principle," while The Nation wrote of "his full- >>> > throated > >>> rejection of the imperial project in Iraq." Former TNR editor >>> > Andrew > >>> Sullivan endorsed Paul for the GOP nomination, and ABC's Jake >>> > Tapper > >>> described the candidate as "the one true straight-talker in this >>> > race." > >>> Even The Wall Street Journal, the newspaper of the elite bankers >>> > whom > >>> Paul detests, recently advised other Republican presidential >>> > contenders > >>> not to "dismiss the passion he's tapped." >>> >>> Most voters had never heard of Paul before he launched his >>> > quixotic bid > >>> for the Republican nomination. But the Texan has been active in >>> > politics > >>> for decades. And, long before he was the darling of antiwar >>> > activists on > >>> the left and right, Paul was in the newsletter business. In the >>> > age > >>> before blogs, newsletters occupied a prominent place in right- >>> > wing > >>> political discourse. With the pages of mainstream politic
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Angry White Man: The bigoted past of Ron Paul
i missed that, heard him on "Meet the PRess" saying his message had wide appeal, and, unfortunately, that included some deemed racists--but that's not his fault or an indication of any negatives in his message. -- Original message -- From: "B. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> This story has been around for a while but it finally seemed to gain traction when it was published in the New Republic. BTW did you see him try to defend himself? According to him Dr. King and Rosa Parks were his heroes and this coming out now because it would erode the support he was getting from "the blacks." --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I called Paul a "fringe" candidate the other day for this reason. He appeals to a lot of guys who like to call themselves "Libertarians". Not all of them, of course, but many Libertarians I've encountered here in Georgia have been disgruntled white guys who seem to pine for the days when women and people of colour knew their place. Who see the government as a giant many-armed creature reaching in to take away their rights, their freedoms, and their beloved guns. Who believe they can and did achieve all they have in life by pulling up their own bootstraps. Who see things like the UN as evil and a corrupting influence on the pure soul of America. > > These are the same guys I've encountered in science fiction and fantasy discussions who are a little too pleased with Conan-type stories where women are half-naked barbarians nonetheless subject to men, and the bad guys are often people of color who are cowed and killed by the white man and his noble, savage strength. These are the guys who often pine for the "good old days" of American virtue: those days, of course, being pre Civil Rights, and hell, pre Women's Suffrage from what I can tell. > > Paul says a lot of things that make sense on the surface, but sometimes you have to look at *why* people feel the way they do. Why else would he have gotten so many donations from white supremacist groups that it became a topic on "Meet The Press"? (He claims to have given the money back). > > I'm not saying Paul himself is a racist--now, at least. But his tone and tenor, his background, and the type of people he inspires make me nervous. I take everything he says with a tablespoon of salt. > > And I guess this would be the downside of my call for a true multi- party system in America, cause along with Dems and Republicans, maybe there'd be a few seats held by the Back to Basics party, consisting mostly of white supremacist isolationists! > > -- Original message -- > From: "Tracey de Morsella (formerly Tracey L. Minor)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Angry White Man: The bigoted past of Ron Paul. > > http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15- 4532a7da84ca > > James Kirchick, The New Republic Published: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 > > > > If you are a critic of the Bush administration, chances are that, at > > some point over the past six months, Ron Paul has said something that > > appealed to you. Paul describes himself as a libertarian, but, since his > > presidential campaign took off earlier this year, the Republican > > congressman has attracted donations and plaudits from across the > > ideological spectrum. Antiwar conservatives, disaffected centrists, even > > young liberal activists have all flocked to Paul, hailing him as a > > throwback to an earlier age, when politicians were less mealy- mouthed > > and American government was more modest in its ambitions, both at home > > and abroad. In The New York Times Magazine, conservative writer > > Christopher Caldwell gushed that Paul is a "formidable stander on > > constitutional principle," while The Nation wrote of "his full- throated > > rejection of the imperial project in Iraq." Former TNR editor Andrew > > Sullivan endorsed Paul for the GOP nomination, and ABC's Jake Tapper > > described the candidate as "the one true straight-talker in this race." > > Even The Wall Street Journal, the newspaper of the elite bankers whom > > Paul detests, recently advised other Republican presidential contenders > > not to "dismiss the passion he's tapped." > > > > Most voters had never heard of Paul before he launched his quixotic bid > > for the Republican nomination. But the Texan has been active in politics > > for decades. And, long before he was the darling of antiwar activists on > > the left and right, Paul was in the newsletter business. In the age > > before blogs, newsletters occupied a prominent place in right- wing > > political discourse. With the pages of mainstream political magazines > > typically off-limits to their views (National Review editor William F. > > Buckley having famously denounced the John Birch Society), hardline > > conservatives resorted to putting out their own, less glossy > > publications. These
