What is Digg?82 Comments
- deadmoo, on 01/16/2008, -3/+37This is the best article written thus far about this issue.
- canewediggit, on 01/16/2008, -2/+30paul can put this to bed at any time- name the writer. even if he doesn't know personally (which i doubt is the case), he knows the person that knows the writer. the more he dodges the issue and tries to sweep it under the rug, the worse it looks.
- COINTELPROAgent, on 01/16/2008, -6/+26So what is his excuse for letting it be published for decades? Lack of oversight?
- vipero00, on 01/16/2008, -4/+23At 1st I wanted to believe the Dondero is a liar excuse. But now after reading this Reason piece there is definitely smoke there. I think that the perceived racism was a strategy choice that has now blown up in their face.
Since the MSM always marginalizes Libertarians I can see the frustration that would lead men of principle in their frustration to lend license to muck rakers to stir the pot in order to generate some attention. However this was a very short sighted strategy and those responsible should do the right thing and express their mea culpas. - chaosium, on 01/16/2008, -3/+21"Ron has addressed the letters"
No, he never did.
"I take moral responsibility" is not an explanation of why he chose to hire these people and involve them with his campaign, and it is not an explanation of why he targeted crazies and supremacists repeatedly in his funding requests. - inactive, on 01/16/2008, -3/+21These charges have been well known in Libertarian circles for years. There are multiple sources with the same conclusion.
I am not surprised you would rather ignore the 7 other columns saying the same thing. - BashiBazouk, on 01/16/2008, -4/+22I really don't think it matters if Ron Paul wrote/approved this stuff or not. Between the really poor judgement in not keeping track of what is written in his name and choosing people around him that would not only write this kind of stuff but not tell him about it if they noticed it is, shall we say, not very presidential in nature. Also this article shows a certain amount of paranoia and secrecy which after the current administration is the last thing anyone wants to vote for.
- chaosium, on 01/16/2008, -3/+20"M.S.M. be damned. "
To be quite honest, the MSM has given the newsletters very little attention compared to how much attention they have (seriously!) given Paul.
it's mostly an issue on the blogosphere Paul dominates. - chaosium, on 01/16/2008, -7/+23How much do you need your hand held on this matter?
Seriously, what is wrong with you? Have you read the article? It dissects the exact connections behind the newsletters and Paul's campaign. - inactive, on 01/16/2008, -2/+18"Raise your hand if you believe Paul has been well aware that Lew Rockwell wrote some of the racist newsletters since the story broke over 10 years ago, and is choosing simply lying to protect the name of this scum, who is a buddy of his"
*raises hand* - inactive, on 01/16/2008, -4/+19Another columnist nailing it:
"Paul now disavows authorship of this material, most or all of which was ghostwritten, and says it doesn't represent his actual views. But even though these screeds were published under his own name for decades, he claims not to have been aware of their content -- a claim that many, me included, find to be transparently unbelievable. It is impossible to read this garbage and not come to one of two conclusions. Either Ron Paul does not believe this repugnant nonsense, but nonetheless allowed it to go out under his name -- as a cynical ploy to sell newsletters by means of scaremongering, collectivist race-baiting, and homosexual-bashing -- or he actually does believe this stuff. You can decide for yourself which alternative is more disgusting and alarming." - inactive, on 01/16/2008, -2/+17"Ron has addressed the letters, his explanation sits well with me"
Of course it does. You're completely invested in the Ron Paul *****. If this was any other candidate you'd be screaming your head off about cover-ups and lies and you would be right to do so. The shoe's on the other foot now, sparky, and no amount of denial on your part is going to save Ron Paul. - bradspangler, on 01/16/2008, -0/+15My opinion of Dondero is that he is a contemptible person (largely as a result of his pro-war/pro-imperialism stance, but for other reasons also). I held that opinion well before Ron Paul's presidential campaign.
All of THAT, however, does not mean he is wrong or lying in THIS particular case. It's NOT JUST Dondero saying this stuff. Just because I dislike Dondero does not mean I have to doubt him if he says the sky is blue. - chaosium, on 01/16/2008, -2/+16THAT MUST BE AN IRS FORGERY THIS CONSPIRACY GOES ALL THE WAY TO THE TOP
- inactive, on 01/16/2008, -2/+16I detest Huckabee almost as much as RP but I don't attack him online since his supporters are not on digg spamming it and acting like total asses.
- ncurses, on 01/16/2008, -3/+16I don't think you guys "get" liberty. See in a free society, when someone levels serious accusations against a government official with a solid backing of hard evidence, and the official denies it, we should just accept his denial without need for explanation or evidence.
- inactive, on 01/16/2008, -2/+15They spammed Digg for about a week. Diggers asked them to stop, and they (mostly) did. There is still a smattering of Huckabee spam. The Ron-Paulogists? "***** you, you hate freedom!"
Gee, why would people tune them out? - fraterm, on 01/16/2008, -4/+17The blowback from this should encourage Rockwell to apologize, and should give pause to those who believe going Machiavellian is the answer in the long run. I'm keeping the faith in the Man and the Message not the Smears. M.S.M. be damned. Massive Shill Machines don't represent me.
- ncurses, on 01/16/2008, -0/+13I'm sure Ron Paul wrote at least some of it, I mean it's got references to his wife and some of it is signed.
- chaosium, on 01/16/2008, -2/+15"(I think the media reports on what people want to hear, and doesn't invent their own agenda).
But regardless of the cause, I'd like to see more libertarian viewpoints in our national discussion."
Regardless of how I feel about Paul, I agree. - chaosium, on 01/16/2008, -0/+13the ron paul survivalist report was an inside job!!!!
- mt066, on 01/16/2008, -2/+14"A tax document from June 1993 reported an annual income of $940,000 for Ron Paul & Associates, listing four employees in Texas (Paul's family and Rockwell) and seven more employees around the country"
That's probably it. See, he can be bought just like everyone else. - chaosium, on 01/16/2008, -4/+16"The difference is that the Ron Paul Racism spammers probably don't actually believe that Dr. Paul is a racist."
I make jokes about it, but regardless of his personal beliefs it's symptomatic of his poor credibility, inconsistency, and that he's both a terrible judge of character and an outright liar. - chaosium, on 01/16/2008, -3/+15It'll continue to grate and rub him raw until it's taken care of.
- mt066, on 01/16/2008, -0/+12I agree. This is no time to protect your buddies. You're running for president; it's time to be honest with your supporters. Nobody would question his loyalty if he threw the writer under the bus. But still he doesn't. That's why I find it very hard to believe he didn't write (or at least wasn't aware of) these. He hasn't exposed the writer because there ISN'T anyone else to pin the blame on.
- inactive, on 01/16/2008, -3/+15Please don't put words in my mouth. Again, just because everything is so rote and black and white to you doesn't mean it is to everyone else.
I'm all for States voting to decide whatever they want**
**Except when that "whatever they want" infringes on the right of the individual. - chaosium, on 01/16/2008, -6/+17"At 1st I wanted to believe the Dondero is a liar excuse. But now after reading this Reason piece there is definitely smoke there."
Well, do you believe that on any level it is possible that the things Dondero dislikes about Paul are involved in why he's no longer working for him? - inactive, on 01/16/2008, -0/+11Amen!
- inactive, on 01/16/2008, -0/+11I figured that as well. Hence the "some" statement in my post, of course. Unless Paul was stupid enough to give Lew rockwell a rubber stamp of his signature...
- inactive, on 01/16/2008, -0/+11I find it interesting that none of his inner circle is loyal enough to him to throw themselves on the grenade. That says a lot about what his own people think about him.
- FritzKatz, on 01/16/2008, -1/+11*raises hand* too.
Ron Paul needs to come clean immediately. If Lew Rockwell wrote those letters, then Paul needs to tell us. - chaosium, on 01/16/2008, -3/+13"then why do you spend your days talking about him and no other candidate?"
Because I would rather promote my choice of candidate in person than online.
There are also very many terrible candidates in the running, however none with the same misplaced swagger and bragaddocio as Paul and his backers.
"what is wrong with you?"
I enjoy arguing.
"You have this much time for entertainment?"
The blessing and curse of any sufficient IT position. I can post up a storm in between Ghosting servers and remoting into various offices countrywide. - ncurses, on 01/16/2008, -2/+12"Hello neocon-apologist."
this is what ron paul supporters actually believe
"admittedly the newsletters are a distraction and good fodder for ignoring the War you and your Chickenhawk buddies support at all costs"
this is what ron paul supporters actually believe
"especially the principles of the (similarly to Paul) imperfect and scandalous Founding Fathers that you like to ignore."
this is what Ron Paul supporters actually believe - inactive, on 01/17/2008, -1/+11Cluelesskid is, as always, clueless.
- inactive, on 01/16/2008, -6/+16Ron paul is ALL for individual rights people!
...Except ones that state governments see fit to infringe on. If your state wants to pass anti-sodomy, anti-abortion, and anti-gay marriage laws, ron paul would tell you to shut the ***** up. - amiches, on 01/16/2008, -3/+13Ah, the ultimate Paultard retort: "don't you have a life or something?" I guess these guys can't post while they're in math class or PE unlike working, voting adults with actual jobs.
- inactive, on 01/16/2008, -2/+12I am afraid that I am not convinced that Dr. paul does agree, due to certain legislation he has voted for or proposed. Certain acts he has submitted comes to mind, and the anti-sodomy laws he's fine with also contradicts the credo I described earlier.
The constitution may know best, but I can name more than a few times that states have passed laws that aren't quite "constitutional". - chaosium, on 01/16/2008, -1/+11"This is no time to protect your buddies"
Exactly. So soon after Bush's cronyism, the last thing you want to put forth is the illusion of an "Old Boy's Network", where something so contemptible would be swept under the rug, and the grenade would be pounced upon. It's about consistency, it's about integrity, and it's certainly about transparency, the whole goddamned enchilada post-Bush. I want someone different, and I hope you guys do too. - inactive, on 01/17/2008, -1/+11So you've been forging documents with Ron Paul's Signature?
Concept, I think you ought to alert your psychiatrist that you're not taking your pills anymore. - amiches, on 01/16/2008, -5/+14I am pretty anti-libertarian, I believe government has the power and the duty to do good in society, but I completely agree with you that your viewpoints are marginalized. Whether that's by design or by necessity, we can agree to disagree (I think the media reports on what people want to hear, and doesn't invent their own agenda).
But regardless of the cause, I'd like to see more libertarian viewpoints in our national discussion. That said, can't you see how bad Ron Paul is for your cause? Libertarianism doesn't need crazy conspiracy theories or racism to survive - it's a competent worldview all on its own, as much as I disagree with it. Do yourself a favor and purge people like Ron Paul from your party - your credibility will be the better for it. - chaosium, on 01/16/2008, -2/+11"What minority would want to work under a racist bigot?"
The one who is told that he has to or his family will starve, because he is too poor to move out of state. - inactive, on 01/16/2008, -2/+11He referred to black people as animals. How can you not see that as racist unless his opinion matches your own?
- chaosium, on 01/16/2008, -3/+11"Great! Then you, I and Doctor Paul agree!!"
I do not believe enforced segregation is more of a "right" than african americans have to appear in public and use the same utilities.
"So what do you think I'm promoting? Slavery for all!!!
Where is your proof that Paul is devising this scheme?
I thought it was a conspiracy that people would take our rights away?"
Your appeal to ridicule does not legitimize Paul's laissez-faire and passive wishes for the destruction of civil rights legislation.
"Why? The Constitution knows better than any government."
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy - inactive, on 01/16/2008, -4/+12Yeah, we should have left the decision with slavery up to each state as well! I mean, states have no representation in washington, right? Because, there is never a time when it is morally justified to protect the rights of the individual on a federal level. I mean, after Roe V wade, I was afraid they were going to put us all into FEMA camps next!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma - inactive, on 01/16/2008, -2/+9It was in those newsletters. Didn't you research him at all before you decided to support him?
- chaosium, on 01/16/2008, -4/+11"Fair enough. So instead of leaving it up to the people in each state we should let one old man in office and a few hundred of his buddies decide for us.
It's much better that way...they know best."
Stop mincing words. You're not in favor of protecting and promoting individual rights and neither is Paul.
Yes, the Federal government knows better than the states when it comes to Civl Rights. - chaosium, on 01/16/2008, -1/+8Seriously, I admire your optimism card, but I distrust umtempered optimism not because I think that you specifically are a racist or a bigot, but that a lapse in your (Paul's) judgement is ripe for exploitation from all manner of fundamentalists, bigots, and racial supremacists.
- inactive, on 01/16/2008, -2/+9State Segregation Laws
State Slavery laws
State Jim Crow Laws
State Anti-Abortion Laws
State Anti-Interracial Marriage Laws
State Anti-sodomy laws
State Anti-Gay marriage Laws
See what I did there, kfed? Anyone can point out flaws in following the constitution, whether it be the federal government in your case, or the state government, in my case. Again, it is important that the federal government step in and intervene whenever a state starts infringing upon individual rights (it's a lot easier for state governments to pass unconstitutional laws than the federal government, which requires cooperation from states all across the country, instead of localized in one area)
Checks and Balances, people. - ViperDaimao, on 01/16/2008, -1/+7In June 1991, an entry on racial disturbances in Washington, DC's Adams Morgan neighborhood was titled, "Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo."
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397 ... - amiches, on 01/16/2008, -1/+7You are quite honestly one of the most Paultarded people on Digg if you can't see the connection between the omerta of the Bush administration and this shoddy cover-up in the Ron Paul campaign.
I support Obama because he advocates universal healthcare, a smart approach to alternative energy, and incentives for localities to build cleaner, healthier communities unlike the sprawling behemoths that we call suburbs today. Now you're going to tell me about how the free market can do all that, without citing any evidence that it ever has. -
Show 51 - 82 of 82 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is