 
|
This board is closed to new users and new posts. Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years. Details here.
|
|
The Free Talk Live BBS
Profile of Tom Foppiano
Show Posts Topics
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
1
The Show / I think you guys missed something about the Chick-fil-A controversy.
« on: August 05, 2012, 10:48:01 PM »
The Chick-fil-A commentary on your show (and everywhere else) seems more than a bit odd to me. I love the show, but I feel like you guys are missing a big part of the controversy. I keep hearing/reading, “The CEO of Chick-fil-A is anti-gay. He wants marriage to be between one man and one woman! What a hateful man. Bigot!”
Ok, fair enough. But what else is this person against? Who else does he apparently hate? What are the other lifestyle choices he doesn't support? Anyone? Helloooooooooooooooo? (Crickets)
If you guessed polygamy/polyandry, you’d are right. Honestly, it makes me sad. People with multiple spouses are so discriminated against that they aren’t even mentioned at all in relation to this story. Their rights just don’t matter because only gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender people have rights. Oh and straight people with one spouse.
If the CEO said he was against black people marrying black people and white people marrying white people, would you only say he’s against white marriage? That would be really fucking weird, right?
And it’s not just this CEO who is “hateful” either. Out of all of the pro LBGT people that I’ve read about online who’ve been protesting/blogging against Chick-fil-A, not one mentioned they support one man marrying seven women. (Yes, I know there must be some who do, but it seems to me they are few and far between.) But let’s say we did find those few gay-rights activists who do support plural marriage….Do they support marriage between a 30 year-old man, his 50 year old mother, and her 80 year-old neighbor? We know the vast, vast majority of them don’t.
Yet, when do gay rights groups get called “hateful” for not supporting all marriages between consenting adults? Almost never. If this CEO is a bigot, then so are the pro-gay people who don’t support polyandry, right? Those gay anti-plural marriage people are hate-filled bigots! (That’s how I communicate when I “come from a position of love,” by the way.)
My point is that the CEO wasn’t just bashing LGBT people. He was bashing other lifestyle choices too. But most individuals in our “society” are so openly against all marriages outside of the sacred gay and traditional versions that almost no one even recognized the CEO was speaking out against them. Or if they did recognize it, they failed to mention it because they agreed with most of his position. IMO, the people who support gay marriage but don’t support plural marriage are just as wrong as those who only “traditional” marriage.
Thanks for reading. Love the show.
Ok, fair enough. But what else is this person against? Who else does he apparently hate? What are the other lifestyle choices he doesn't support? Anyone? Helloooooooooooooooo? (Crickets)
If you guessed polygamy/polyandry, you’d are right. Honestly, it makes me sad. People with multiple spouses are so discriminated against that they aren’t even mentioned at all in relation to this story. Their rights just don’t matter because only gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender people have rights. Oh and straight people with one spouse.
If the CEO said he was against black people marrying black people and white people marrying white people, would you only say he’s against white marriage? That would be really fucking weird, right?
And it’s not just this CEO who is “hateful” either. Out of all of the pro LBGT people that I’ve read about online who’ve been protesting/blogging against Chick-fil-A, not one mentioned they support one man marrying seven women. (Yes, I know there must be some who do, but it seems to me they are few and far between.) But let’s say we did find those few gay-rights activists who do support plural marriage….Do they support marriage between a 30 year-old man, his 50 year old mother, and her 80 year-old neighbor? We know the vast, vast majority of them don’t.
Yet, when do gay rights groups get called “hateful” for not supporting all marriages between consenting adults? Almost never. If this CEO is a bigot, then so are the pro-gay people who don’t support polyandry, right? Those gay anti-plural marriage people are hate-filled bigots! (That’s how I communicate when I “come from a position of love,” by the way.)
My point is that the CEO wasn’t just bashing LGBT people. He was bashing other lifestyle choices too. But most individuals in our “society” are so openly against all marriages outside of the sacred gay and traditional versions that almost no one even recognized the CEO was speaking out against them. Or if they did recognize it, they failed to mention it because they agreed with most of his position. IMO, the people who support gay marriage but don’t support plural marriage are just as wrong as those who only “traditional” marriage.
Thanks for reading. Love the show.
2
The Show / No Historical Evidence of a Free Society
« on: May 06, 2012, 12:07:35 AM »
I loved the discussion you guys had with the lefty radio host a few days ago. During the discussion, Dr Knows Whats Best mentioned something like..."there is no evidence that society can exist without monopolist government."
While its been a long time since I've read rebuttals to this criticism, one of the responses I remember finding interesting is that at one point in time there was no evidence that a large prosperous society could exist without a king/queen. Think about it from their pre-democracy perspective.....how in the world can society function without a central ruler who can make all decisions? If people could vote, wouldn't all of the competing interests create complete chaos that would result in the utter destruction of civilization itself? Wouldn't all of the laws change every election? And aren't people too stupid to pick the correct ruler?
And since most of the people who argue against liberty are huge fans of "democracy," you can remind them that their beloved institution took thousands and thousands of years to blossom.
Plus, people said the same stuff about abolition. "We have always had slaves. How could we have a functioning economy, peace & tranquility, and the rule of law without slavery? I mean, its in the bible isn't it?" Again, same argument.
As Roderick Long once said on this very topic, "The night is young." (Meaning, modern civilization is brand new and human beings have a long future ahead were social structures can change.)
While its been a long time since I've read rebuttals to this criticism, one of the responses I remember finding interesting is that at one point in time there was no evidence that a large prosperous society could exist without a king/queen. Think about it from their pre-democracy perspective.....how in the world can society function without a central ruler who can make all decisions? If people could vote, wouldn't all of the competing interests create complete chaos that would result in the utter destruction of civilization itself? Wouldn't all of the laws change every election? And aren't people too stupid to pick the correct ruler?
And since most of the people who argue against liberty are huge fans of "democracy," you can remind them that their beloved institution took thousands and thousands of years to blossom.
Plus, people said the same stuff about abolition. "We have always had slaves. How could we have a functioning economy, peace & tranquility, and the rule of law without slavery? I mean, its in the bible isn't it?" Again, same argument.
As Roderick Long once said on this very topic, "The night is young." (Meaning, modern civilization is brand new and human beings have a long future ahead were social structures can change.)
3
General / Cults...AHHHHHH!
« on: April 25, 2012, 01:34:35 PM »
Whats going on with Ian and his new tactic of calling everyone but Free Staters cult members? From an outside perspective, it looks like Ian got tired of being called a cult leader and started leveling the same charge against everyone else.
On the show, Ian was continually mentioning "jargon." Which, according to dictionary.com, means, "the language, especially the vocabulary, peculiar to a particular trade, profession, or group." Don't Free Keeners use all kinds of jargon? I'm not against using these terms but I think they definitely constitute jargon. Things like....
Man in the robe/man in a dress=judge
Cages=Jail
Criminal gang=government, especially police
Peaceful Person=person not in government
Gang member=police officer
Cult members=citizens who believe in government
Indoctrination camps=school
Extortion= taxes
The Shire=something hard for me to define
Again, I don't disagree with these terms, not one bit, but how are they not examples of jargon?
And how about all of the free keeners who've changed their name to Freeman, Lawless, or Voluntaryist? Think about how weird it is to people who don't know much about the free state project to read something like, "Ian Freeman, Derrick Freeman, and Kelly Voluntaryist were peacefully protesting the criminal gang's putting peaceful persons in cages for being peaceful peaceful peaceful peaceful." Sounds pretty damn culty, right?
I love this show and I love the FSP, but how about we stop calling people cult members? To an outsider, it may sound like a closeted homosexual calling everyone gay.
On the show, Ian was continually mentioning "jargon." Which, according to dictionary.com, means, "the language, especially the vocabulary, peculiar to a particular trade, profession, or group." Don't Free Keeners use all kinds of jargon? I'm not against using these terms but I think they definitely constitute jargon. Things like....
Man in the robe/man in a dress=judge
Cages=Jail
Criminal gang=government, especially police
Peaceful Person=person not in government
Gang member=police officer
Cult members=citizens who believe in government
Indoctrination camps=school
Extortion= taxes
The Shire=something hard for me to define
Again, I don't disagree with these terms, not one bit, but how are they not examples of jargon?
And how about all of the free keeners who've changed their name to Freeman, Lawless, or Voluntaryist? Think about how weird it is to people who don't know much about the free state project to read something like, "Ian Freeman, Derrick Freeman, and Kelly Voluntaryist were peacefully protesting the criminal gang's putting peaceful persons in cages for being peaceful peaceful peaceful peaceful." Sounds pretty damn culty, right?
I love this show and I love the FSP, but how about we stop calling people cult members? To an outsider, it may sound like a closeted homosexual calling everyone gay.
4
General / PayPal and Rape Books
« on: February 28, 2012, 03:48:03 PM »
I don't know why some people have a problem with PayPal not wanting to do business with publishers who sell "rape books." I guarantee that if PayPal stopped doing business with people who write pro-white pride/racist books, Ian and others would be really happy about it. They'd be cheering "the market's" ability to deal with social taboos.
Oh, and private companies don't "censor" anyone as the caller claimed. They choose not to associate with people and its totally legitimate. Thankfully, Ian did bring that point up.
Oh, and private companies don't "censor" anyone as the caller claimed. They choose not to associate with people and its totally legitimate. Thankfully, Ian did bring that point up.
5
General / Can Someone Please Explain the Name Change Thing?
« on: February 27, 2012, 07:43:36 PM »
I am not trying to be rude or mean, but I haven't heard why a lot of people in NH change their names. I know other groups do the same thing, like Muslims, so I don't think its too strange or necessarily bad.
I know I've heard something about this on FTL, but I don't remember what was said.
Thanks in advance.
PS Here is a quote I just read on another thread which prompted my writing this post.....
FYI - Ian Freeman is now free(r) on PR (personal recognizance) he and others are now headed back to Cheshire Co. jail to bail out Derrick J. Freeman & Kelly Voluntaryist.
-Pete Voluntaryist Eyre
I know I've heard something about this on FTL, but I don't remember what was said.
Thanks in advance.
PS Here is a quote I just read on another thread which prompted my writing this post.....
FYI - Ian Freeman is now free(r) on PR (personal recognizance) he and others are now headed back to Cheshire Co. jail to bail out Derrick J. Freeman & Kelly Voluntaryist.
-Pete Voluntaryist Eyre
6
Last week, I bought a new puppy. She is a "pointing" yellow Labrador Retriever. And yes, for those of you who care, she is already pointing at 8.5 weeks when I bring out the pheasant wing. I just hope I'll be able to help her reach her full potential because I've never trained a dog to point before...so I kind of suck at it.
Her name is Ivy (short for Ivy League because she was so god damn expensive).
Her name is Ivy (short for Ivy League because she was so god damn expensive).
7
General / Idea for liberty tv show
« on: February 04, 2012, 04:12:11 PM »
I doubt I'm the first person to have this idea, but I here it goes.
Somebody else, because I don't know shit about making TV shows, should make a show called, "What's the Law?" where contestants are asked questions about the law. It could be like jeopardy where you say, "I'll take state law for 200, Bob." Then the host asks something like, "What is legal in Oregon. A: Starting a business on Sunday...B: Kissing raccoons....C: Driving a car with a half-full bottle of wine in your back seat"...........you get the point.
There's so many crazy ass laws that people would see how hard it is to be a "law abiding citizen."
Thoughts? Keep them to yourself. (Just kidding)
Somebody else, because I don't know shit about making TV shows, should make a show called, "What's the Law?" where contestants are asked questions about the law. It could be like jeopardy where you say, "I'll take state law for 200, Bob." Then the host asks something like, "What is legal in Oregon. A: Starting a business on Sunday...B: Kissing raccoons....C: Driving a car with a half-full bottle of wine in your back seat"...........you get the point.
There's so many crazy ass laws that people would see how hard it is to be a "law abiding citizen."
Thoughts? Keep them to yourself. (Just kidding)
8
General / I'm a crypto-anarchic small-L left libertarian Republican.
« on: February 01, 2012, 09:26:38 PM »
What is Some Funny Shit Libertarians Say?
http://www.quora.com/What-is-some-shit-that-libertarians-say
Do you accept gold?
Do you accept Liberty Dollars?
So you think that money is the root of all evil...
The Fed is the root of all evil.
The Treasury is the root of all evil.
Librarian? No, Libertarian.
I'm a small-L libertarian.
I'm a paleo-libertarian.
I'm a neo-libertarian.
I'm a bleeding-heart libertarian.
I'm not a libertarian, I'm a classical liberal.
I'm the president of the local anarchist group.
There's no government like no government.
"A government is a body of people; usually, notably ungoverned."
I left Google to start my own country.
I invest in start-up countries.
I'm a rational anarchist.
I'm a market anarchist.
I'm an anarcho-capitalist.
I'm a crypto-anarchic small-L left libertarian Republican.
Really, I just like blowing stuff up.
My favorite president? William Henry Harrison.
Why don't we have leaders like Calvin Coolidge anymore?
Herbert Hoover was too big-government for me.
I'm not really a fan of King Lincoln and his gulags.
Katrina? Hasn't New Orleans gone through enough with King Andrew's dictatorship?
I buried my savings on a deserted island off the coast of Alaska.
The bathroom's on your right, just past the underground bunker.
I call it Rapture.
Savings? See this gold filling...?
Stocks? I invest in Blackwater.
I imported my Fourth of July fireworks from England.
These fireworks are illegal in all fifty states.
"If government were a product, selling it would be illegal."
The public be damned.
The public good be damned.
I pay my taxes with barrels of pennies.
"Be wary of strong drink. It can make you shoot at tax collectors — and miss."
"Just be thankful you're not getting all the government you're paying for."
I encrypt my cat photos with three-stage DES.
I go through seven proxies to read Reddit.
I can remotely blow-up my hard drive.
How do you block the NSA with iptables?
I respond to packets from the CIA with the text of the Bill of Rights.
I go to Loyola.
I go to George Mason.
Mises wrote a thousand-page book on that. I can't believe you haven't read it.
I'm an Austrian. ... No, I'm from New Jersey.
The mailman is a functionary of the State apparatus.
I can't quantify my hatred of the State. Preferences are ordinal.
I'm not a libertarian, I'm an economist.
I'm not an economist, I just know more than they do about the subject.
My favorite trade economist? Paul Krugman.
My least-favorite economist? Paul Krugman.
http://www.quora.com/What-is-some-shit-that-libertarians-say
Do you accept gold?
Do you accept Liberty Dollars?
So you think that money is the root of all evil...
The Fed is the root of all evil.
The Treasury is the root of all evil.
Librarian? No, Libertarian.
I'm a small-L libertarian.
I'm a paleo-libertarian.
I'm a neo-libertarian.
I'm a bleeding-heart libertarian.
I'm not a libertarian, I'm a classical liberal.
I'm the president of the local anarchist group.
There's no government like no government.
"A government is a body of people; usually, notably ungoverned."
I left Google to start my own country.
I invest in start-up countries.
I'm a rational anarchist.
I'm a market anarchist.
I'm an anarcho-capitalist.
I'm a crypto-anarchic small-L left libertarian Republican.
Really, I just like blowing stuff up.
My favorite president? William Henry Harrison.
Why don't we have leaders like Calvin Coolidge anymore?
Herbert Hoover was too big-government for me.
I'm not really a fan of King Lincoln and his gulags.
Katrina? Hasn't New Orleans gone through enough with King Andrew's dictatorship?
I buried my savings on a deserted island off the coast of Alaska.
The bathroom's on your right, just past the underground bunker.
I call it Rapture.
Savings? See this gold filling...?
Stocks? I invest in Blackwater.
I imported my Fourth of July fireworks from England.
These fireworks are illegal in all fifty states.
"If government were a product, selling it would be illegal."
The public be damned.
The public good be damned.
I pay my taxes with barrels of pennies.
"Be wary of strong drink. It can make you shoot at tax collectors — and miss."
"Just be thankful you're not getting all the government you're paying for."
I encrypt my cat photos with three-stage DES.
I go through seven proxies to read Reddit.
I can remotely blow-up my hard drive.
How do you block the NSA with iptables?
I respond to packets from the CIA with the text of the Bill of Rights.
I go to Loyola.
I go to George Mason.
Mises wrote a thousand-page book on that. I can't believe you haven't read it.
I'm an Austrian. ... No, I'm from New Jersey.
The mailman is a functionary of the State apparatus.
I can't quantify my hatred of the State. Preferences are ordinal.
I'm not a libertarian, I'm an economist.
I'm not an economist, I just know more than they do about the subject.
My favorite trade economist? Paul Krugman.
My least-favorite economist? Paul Krugman.
9
General / "Terms of Service"
« on: January 21, 2012, 09:38:54 PM »
F. Chronic expressions of direct abuse toward a collective ethnic group of people will not be tolerated. If you collectivize a group of people by their genotype and make directly negative comments about said group you are treading thin ice. The determination of the words “Ethnic group” and “Chronic” shall be left to the discretion of the moderators.
Read that paragraph....its funny. It seems we are allowed to "collectivize a group of people by their genotype and make..." positive comments.
Purple people are awesome!
Read that paragraph....its funny. It seems we are allowed to "collectivize a group of people by their genotype and make..." positive comments.
Purple people are awesome!
10
General / Google to go protest SOPA
« on: January 17, 2012, 11:25:04 PM »
I've been reading about how companies like google are going to protest SOPA tomorrow. Yippee, it seems like there are some quasi free market business leaders after all! Whats that? Oh, well, yes......some of the founders of google did support Obamacare, but come on, this is different, right?
If government is good enough to control the healthcare industry, why not have it heavily regulate the internet? After all, it will be their boy Obama who will be in charge of enforcing these new rules.
Hypocritical, indeed.
If government is good enough to control the healthcare industry, why not have it heavily regulate the internet? After all, it will be their boy Obama who will be in charge of enforcing these new rules.
Hypocritical, indeed.
11
General / Voluntaryists don't vote?
« on: January 14, 2012, 11:05:16 PM »
I know that Ian doesn't like the terms anarcho-capitalist, libertarian, blah blah blah............and prefers to be called a "voluntaryist." I never looked up the term because I assumed that it had the same definition as the more conventional ones described earlier.
The weird thing is the definitions of "voluntaryist" I found on the internet were very clear in that voluntaryists don't vote. It seemed to be the fundamental difference between voluntaryist and anarcho-capitalist.
So my question is how can people like Ian, who are very strict in their using the proper definitions of words, use the term "voluntaryist" to define themselves when they vote? Are the online definitions that I read incorrect? Anyone use this term to describe yourself and vote at the same time? Dale, how about you? I'm only curious. I have no problem if you use this term and vote, as words change meaning over time.
Relevant Quote from wikipedia " Voluntaryist movements are distinct in their rejection of both electoral politics and initiative violence as means by which to bring about a voluntary society."
Relevant Quote from voluntaryist.com "Voluntaryists are advocates of non-political, non-violent strategies to achieve a free society. We reject electoral politics, in theory and in practice, as incompatible with libertarian principles."
The weird thing is the definitions of "voluntaryist" I found on the internet were very clear in that voluntaryists don't vote. It seemed to be the fundamental difference between voluntaryist and anarcho-capitalist.
So my question is how can people like Ian, who are very strict in their using the proper definitions of words, use the term "voluntaryist" to define themselves when they vote? Are the online definitions that I read incorrect? Anyone use this term to describe yourself and vote at the same time? Dale, how about you? I'm only curious. I have no problem if you use this term and vote, as words change meaning over time.
Relevant Quote from wikipedia " Voluntaryist movements are distinct in their rejection of both electoral politics and initiative violence as means by which to bring about a voluntary society."
Relevant Quote from voluntaryist.com "Voluntaryists are advocates of non-political, non-violent strategies to achieve a free society. We reject electoral politics, in theory and in practice, as incompatible with libertarian principles."
12
General / If you don't support gay marriage, you must be in the closet.
« on: January 11, 2012, 07:00:46 PM »
There seems to be some weird logic making its way around FTL. Apparently, all of the politicians who don't support "gay rights" are really homosexuals. Rick Santorum comes to mind, but I've heard this nonsense about others as well.
Don't get wrong. I support gay marriage, gay adoption, and gay butt sex. But just because someone doesn't support those things, doesn't mean they're gay. Even if someone is extremely opposed to gayness, it doesn't mean they're in the closet.
Think about how most all of us here don't support aggression. In fact, we super duper, extra strongly, extremely don't support aggression. Does that mean that we're all closet statists? Unless we use bankrupt logic, we usually assume that people who don't support aggression....(wait for it).......don't support aggression!
"Yes, Tom, but what about all of those people like Ted Haggard who are gay and don't support gay rights?" Answer: You're talking about a very small number of people. Last time I checked somewhere around 50% of the population doesn't support gay marriage. Are we really going to say that 50% of the population is gay? What about people who used to not support gay rights and now do support them. Did they convert from being gay and are now straight?
Don't get wrong. I support gay marriage, gay adoption, and gay butt sex. But just because someone doesn't support those things, doesn't mean they're gay. Even if someone is extremely opposed to gayness, it doesn't mean they're in the closet.
Think about how most all of us here don't support aggression. In fact, we super duper, extra strongly, extremely don't support aggression. Does that mean that we're all closet statists? Unless we use bankrupt logic, we usually assume that people who don't support aggression....(wait for it).......don't support aggression!
"Yes, Tom, but what about all of those people like Ted Haggard who are gay and don't support gay rights?" Answer: You're talking about a very small number of people. Last time I checked somewhere around 50% of the population doesn't support gay marriage. Are we really going to say that 50% of the population is gay? What about people who used to not support gay rights and now do support them. Did they convert from being gay and are now straight?
13
General / Police Website Threatens Swat Raids for Drug Users
« on: January 06, 2012, 03:23:31 AM »
Gotta love our brothers in blue. Here's a picture I downloaded from the website of the Barton County "Critical Response Team." Notice they wrote, "use," not sell.
http://www.bartoncounty.org/Sheriff/CRT.htm
http://www.bartoncounty.org/Sheriff/CRT.htm
14
General / Bob Murphy's Defense of Lew Rockwell in Regards to Racist Newsletters
« on: January 01, 2012, 01:06:53 AM »
Bob Murphy wrote a short defense of the Mises Institute and Lew Rockwell on his blog after reading some criticism online about how racist they all are. I cut the part about LvMI out and only put the stuff about Rockwell in.
(If you don't know Bob Murphy, then you probably don't know Lew either)
Here it is.......
#2. The charge that Lew Rockwell is hurting Ron Paul’s election chances by his cowardly refusal to acknowledge authorship of the newsletters, is arguably the stupidest claim I’ve heard in 2011.
Let’s state the obvious: There were some pretty shocking things in those newsletters, and I wish they never got published, so that we wouldn’t be having this conversation right now. Having said that, let me point out that most (not all) of the offending passages were jokes in very poor taste. Furthermore, to call a black politician “Barbara Morondon,” or to say Martin Luther King Jr. was a plagiarist who “beat up his paramours,” isn’t actually racist. It’s mean, and it would appeal to racists (duh), but strictly speaking, a lot of the things being quoted to show how racist Ron Paul’s ghostwriter must be, actually aren’t racist.
OK but put that stuff aside; I’m certainly not here to defend the statements themselves–Ron Paul himself has repeatedly disavowed them. What I am here to do, is to point out how stupid one of the charges floating around about Lew Rockwell is. Specifically, the charge goes that Rockwell is hurting Ron Paul’s candidacy because he (Rockwell) is unwilling to take responsibility for writing those things.
Here’s the problem: By their own admission, these critics think this newsletter business was a conscious strategy to appeal to the bigoted fringe. Indeed (depending on the critic), the Mises Institute only exists to cater to these people. So why would Rockwell be afraid? Shouldn’t he be like Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men, saying, “You’re damn right I ordered the Code Black!”
That’s what’s so ridiculous about this whole thing. On the one hand, people criticize Rockwell for his non-stop, throw-decency-to-the-winds promotion of Ron Paul. They also say Rockwell caters to racists. And yet, a lot of these people are also saying Rockwell is unwilling to admit he wrote racist things, even though by doing this he would help Ron Paul.
Lew Rockwell himself has denied that he wrote the newsletters. I can’t seem to find the quote, but he said something along the lines that the actual author is no longer with us. So here are two general theories to explain the current situation:
(A) Lew Rockwell didn’t write the newsletters, and doesn’t want to throw his dead associate under the bus because he knows full well this won’t do anything to satisfy the hyenas.
(B) Lew Rockwell wrote the newsletters, knows that if he fesses up, it will help Ron Paul’s campaign, but nonetheless remains silent because Lew Rockwell is the kind of guy who really cares what others think about him, especially people who are very concerned about showing sensitivity to minorities.
I’m not saying (A) and (B) exhaust all possibilities, but of those two choices, which do you think is more likely?
Last point: Just do a forensic analysis. Does Lew Rockwell crack jokes in his writings? When he’s on the radio being interviewed, does he crack jokes? No, he’s as serious as cancer. So just the style of those newsletters is nothing like the official Lew Rockwell material, at least since I’ve been following him in the last dozen or so years.
All right, Happy New Year everybody.
http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog
(If you don't know Bob Murphy, then you probably don't know Lew either)
Here it is.......
#2. The charge that Lew Rockwell is hurting Ron Paul’s election chances by his cowardly refusal to acknowledge authorship of the newsletters, is arguably the stupidest claim I’ve heard in 2011.
Let’s state the obvious: There were some pretty shocking things in those newsletters, and I wish they never got published, so that we wouldn’t be having this conversation right now. Having said that, let me point out that most (not all) of the offending passages were jokes in very poor taste. Furthermore, to call a black politician “Barbara Morondon,” or to say Martin Luther King Jr. was a plagiarist who “beat up his paramours,” isn’t actually racist. It’s mean, and it would appeal to racists (duh), but strictly speaking, a lot of the things being quoted to show how racist Ron Paul’s ghostwriter must be, actually aren’t racist.
OK but put that stuff aside; I’m certainly not here to defend the statements themselves–Ron Paul himself has repeatedly disavowed them. What I am here to do, is to point out how stupid one of the charges floating around about Lew Rockwell is. Specifically, the charge goes that Rockwell is hurting Ron Paul’s candidacy because he (Rockwell) is unwilling to take responsibility for writing those things.
Here’s the problem: By their own admission, these critics think this newsletter business was a conscious strategy to appeal to the bigoted fringe. Indeed (depending on the critic), the Mises Institute only exists to cater to these people. So why would Rockwell be afraid? Shouldn’t he be like Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men, saying, “You’re damn right I ordered the Code Black!”
That’s what’s so ridiculous about this whole thing. On the one hand, people criticize Rockwell for his non-stop, throw-decency-to-the-winds promotion of Ron Paul. They also say Rockwell caters to racists. And yet, a lot of these people are also saying Rockwell is unwilling to admit he wrote racist things, even though by doing this he would help Ron Paul.
Lew Rockwell himself has denied that he wrote the newsletters. I can’t seem to find the quote, but he said something along the lines that the actual author is no longer with us. So here are two general theories to explain the current situation:
(A) Lew Rockwell didn’t write the newsletters, and doesn’t want to throw his dead associate under the bus because he knows full well this won’t do anything to satisfy the hyenas.
(B) Lew Rockwell wrote the newsletters, knows that if he fesses up, it will help Ron Paul’s campaign, but nonetheless remains silent because Lew Rockwell is the kind of guy who really cares what others think about him, especially people who are very concerned about showing sensitivity to minorities.
I’m not saying (A) and (B) exhaust all possibilities, but of those two choices, which do you think is more likely?
Last point: Just do a forensic analysis. Does Lew Rockwell crack jokes in his writings? When he’s on the radio being interviewed, does he crack jokes? No, he’s as serious as cancer. So just the style of those newsletters is nothing like the official Lew Rockwell material, at least since I’ve been following him in the last dozen or so years.
All right, Happy New Year everybody.
http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog
15
General / Ron Paul Racism Response Video
« on: December 30, 2011, 03:03:36 PM »
Below is the link to the video about Ron Paul's treating an interracial couple in 1972 when one else would (due to racism). After delivering their stillborn baby, Dr Paul handled the bill.
It is a powerful response to claims of racism.
http://www.revolutionpac.com/2011/12/the-compassion-of-dr-ron-paul/
It is a powerful response to claims of racism.
http://www.revolutionpac.com/2011/12/the-compassion-of-dr-ron-paul/