I think you are nailing it here Rob. Ron Paul is a
better federal candidate. Some people are meant to be
in local office, some state, some fed and a few can
mix. That is my biggest frustration with the LP
supporting tons of unwinnable federal races with
candidates that would be very good and WINNABLE at
local office. I think Ron Paul is as much libertarian
as you or I, he just is working for the freedom
movement in a different area than us. I am just sick
of finger pointing and libertarian litmus tests. We
should support candidates that are helping to push the
freedom movement, however we can and wherever they are
at. We can always show our personal slants when we are
working for the movement ourselves, but to fight
against someone else in the same freedom movement
whose "total package" of ideals are not quite 100
percent in line with yours, and treat these people as
if they were nazis, statists, commies, socialists or
facists, is in no way the right way to victory over
the real statists. I think there are about 10 or 15
key things we can pick out that "draw a line" (but I
hate lines or litmus tests) between statist and
freedom movement, and those are things like habeous
corpus protetion, gun rights, scams like social
security etc. I guess it's hard to tell someone who is
adament for gay rights or abortion rights that their
issue isn't as important, and I really don't think
those issues are, because gay rights and abortion do
not affect as many people nationwide. I really think
the "rallying" points of Ron Paul are more towards the
LP's (or what they should be) and I don't feel that
gay rights, abortion or immigration are that important
of issues, because, they are so divisive (hence this
online discussion). We should be working on our common
issues and getting the job done and getting as much of
our LP agenda passed, and then we can debate abortion,
immigration, and gay rights with the Right leaners all
we want (and remember all of you that I too am a left
leaner libertarian so don't do any stupid personal
attacks) once we "libertarians" have power. That's
just how I am looking at the freedom movement today.
But it is very important, as Brian said, to listen and
stop trying to be right all the time. Maybe we can
present libertarianism from the left perspective for
those in SF and in Texas they can present from the
Right. Either way, I believe we all win.
-TJ Campbell
--- Rob <robpower@...> wrote:
I'd suggest that Brian's original link:
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/g/ftp.py?people/g/gannon.dan/1992/gannon.0793
to the full text of the 1992 Ron Paul newsletter is
reliable, since
page 4 of the NYT Magazine article at:
http://tinyurl.com/yvytj9
contains direct quotes from what Brian sent, and
Paul acknowledges
that such an article was indeed written under his
byline. He just
claims someone else ghost wrote it for him and that
he doesn't believe
those things. That may indeed be true, but it
doesn't mean Brian or
his source have perpetrated a "21st century
forgery," as you put it.
Brian would not post a forgery, and the fact that
the ideas were so
"out there" and un-libertarian that you were
absolutely positive that
it had to be a forgery should be a clear signal to
you that you and
Ron Paul (or at least you and his ghostwriter) don't
share many values.
Here's the relevant paragraph from the NYT Magazine
article which
corroborates the text that Brian originally sent
out, so let's all
just cool it with the "Brian sent out a forgery"
accusations:
***
The question is whether the old ideologies being
resurrected are
neglected wisdom or discredited nonsense. In the
1996 general
election, Paul's Democratic opponent Lefty Morris
held a press
conference to air several shocking quotes from a
newsletter that Paul
published during his decade away from Washington.
Passages described
the black male population of Washington as
"semi-criminal or entirely
criminal" and stated that "by far the most powerful
lobby in
Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli
government." Morris noted
that a Canadian neo-Nazi Web site had listed Paul's
newsletter as a
laudably "racialist" publication.
***
I don't think Ron Paul is a racist, but I do think
he only considers
himself a libertarian because he lives in an
all-white, all Christian,
all-straight, all-conservative bubble of a
community. If he were
instead a Supervisor in San Francisco, I think he'd
become a statist
over night, because so many people and things in
this city don't fit
well in his comfort zone. He'd be passing laws left
and right,
claiming all the while that it was okay, because it
was local
government constraining liberty, not the federal
government. I admit
that my evidence for this is thin, because the only
local government
he's ever had a say in is Washington DC. But I'd
suggest that his
votes like the one to ban same-sex adoption in DC
lend considerable
weight to my argument.
Rob
(speaking for myself not Outright)
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Philip Berg"
<philip@...> wrote:
>
> I would like the link to the article he wrote
about black terrorists
etc after Rodney King riots.
>
> As for making us more free, this is my
perspective.
>
> It sucks that he likes sodomy laws, but the good
news is that he
does not think they should be federal.
>
> I am terrified of the dangerous symmetry between
the US and Nazi
Germany. I believe, as did De Tocqueville, that
Federalism is the
number one protector of our freedom and our liberty.
Centralizing
sodomy laws and abortion laws runs the risk of
national bans should
the right take over. Better to have these laws
universally held to be
none of the federal governments business than risk
a country with
universal sodomy laws and universal abortion ban
should an economic
downturn or terrorist incident bring the far right
into absolute
power. I don't think it is too hard to explain this
basic fear and
reasoning to progressives. I think it makes a whole
lot of sense when
looked through the lens of history, and looking at
the yahoos we have
to live with here on the ground.
>
> Getting the federal government out of drug
enforcement clearly helps
bring about liberty especially for those most
victimized by the drug war.
>
> Too late to go on.
>
> Phil
> From: Rob
> To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 12:11 AM
> Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Something for all
the Ron Paul
supporters to read
>
>
> --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Philip
Berg" <philip@> wrote:
> >
> > Please give a reliable link
>
> To the NYT Magazine article? The tinyurl link
Michael Edelstein sent
> is working fine for me:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yvytj9
>
> Is it not opening for you, Phil? If you'd like,
I can send you the
> full text of the article off-list.
>
> Rob
> (speaking for myself not Outright)
>
> > From: Rob
> > To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 8:25 PM
> > Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Something for all
the Ron Paul
> supporters to read
> >
> >
> > --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Philip
Berg" <philip@> wrote:
> > >
> > > The biggest tipoff that this is 21 st
century forgery is the word
> > "black terrorist" down in the Reginald Denny
section. That is not an
> > expression that would likely be used in 1992.
> >
> > Sorry, Phil, but you're simply wrong. The
phrase "black terrorist"
> > was indeed used under Ron Paul's byline in
that 1992 newsletter. He
> > even admits it in the NYT Magazine article.
But his defense is that
> > the article was ghost written by someone
working for him, and
that he
> > doesn't agree with those sentiments.
> >
> > If you're going to defend Ron Paul, please
don't do it by claiming
> > that someone offering criticism is lying, when
the candidate himself
> > admits the facts and instead finds some other
way to weasel out of
> > responsibility.
> >
> > Rob
> > (speaking on my own behalf and not Outright's)
> >
>
=== message truncated ===