Comments on: Ron Paul Newsletters, 140 characters at a time

By: dustin potter

dustin potter — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 20:11:00 +0000

“So newspaper owners and editors get to choose what gets printed in their papers. They really do.”

good point, but i was going with the comparison that they work with what’s submitted to them and nothing more, pre-internet. these days they just copy/paste from the AP, etc. there’s a difference in that they didn’t get to pick what’s submitted any more than RP did. i don’t believe for a second that he didn’t read these before publishing, but the longer story is probably much more complicated. even if you don’t draw the line in the same places, can you not imagine him rejecting things he felt were over the top? the fact that these were not rejected shows that they were considered differently at the time and/or the other stuff that was coming in was much worse. there’s a lot of room for doubt on either side if you’re not filling the empty space with your own version of the story (like some people in this argument).

By: The Chemist

The Chemist — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 20:03:00 +0000

@AlexD

It’s so cool, that we made thirteenth and a fourteenth one following a bloody civil war. Please read them. They make the CRA constitutional.

By: The Chemist

The Chemist — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 19:56:00 +0000

That infamous racist Congressman James P. Dowell.

By: Tess

Tess — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 19:51:00 +0000

Racism is wrong but losing your ability to codify it into law is wronger!

/snark

By: Tess

Tess — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 19:50:00 +0000

Thank you very much for saying this. The right to a trial won’t actually help me much if my identity is illegal… or if it’s perfectly legal to treat me like a nonperson.

By: Tess

Tess — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 19:46:00 +0000

These are not mutually exclusive things, you know.

By: UFIA

UFIA — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 19:41:00 +0000

You have seen a gang of black girls defending Ron Paul and wish you hadn’t?

Me, I’ve been poking white girls. No syringes used.

By: Tess

Tess — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 19:40:00 +0000

Very nearly all rapists are men, and yet we have friends who are men and don’t fear strange men and generally do not assume all men are rapists. Your “there’s a grain of truth” argument fails.

By: Tess

Tess — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 19:38:00 +0000

I know. I try to pretend it’s coming from someone I generally support, and my head still explodes.

By: Tess

Tess — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 19:37:00 +0000

You’re on a moderated comment thread, dude, so your point is not particularly well made. Guess who really does read the comments?

Also I have no idea what you mean – pre-internet media was edited before it went to press, whereas comment threads are, well, post-production in a sense.

So newspaper owners and editors get to choose what gets printed in their papers. They really do.

By: The Chemist

The Chemist — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 19:11:00 +0000

I HAVE a broken CapSloCK key TOO!

By: The Chemist

The Chemist — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 19:10:00 +0000

SSSHHH! Don’t quote Ron Paul, his supporters hate it when you do that!

By: jmsptrk

jmsptrk — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 19:00:00 +0000

Gary Johnson.

By: The Chemist

The Chemist — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 18:53:00 +0000

No, those things you describe weren’t “conspiracy theories,” they were conspiracies. One’s all the way on the other side of the room from the other, and it’s a big room.

By: Ryan Lenethen

Ryan Lenethen — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 18:52:00 +0000

LOL, don’t really dissagree… however:

” means allegiance to hundred year old debunked fringe economic theories based on ideology and not observations”

That could describe just about every modern candidate within memory. How long had Greenspan been running the show? 20-30 years?

By: The Chemist

The Chemist — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 18:48:00 +0000

@CSMcDonald:disqus
Actually the tenth amendment doesn’t exist, not in its original sense. It’s superseded in parts by subsequent amendments.
What do you think the word amendment means?

By: The Chemist

The Chemist — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 18:41:00 +0000

And where in the first ten amendments (the only ones Ron Paul seems to think we have) do we extend those rights to people in the States? We don’t. We don’t even guarantee that people can’t be enslaved.

By: The Chemist

The Chemist — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 18:34:00 +0000

Yes, and I’m sure Jim Jones was also just misunderstood.

Chug that Kool-Aid!

By: grimc

grimc — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 18:18:00 +0000

The only truly anti-MIC candidate since there has BEEN an MIC (except perhaps for Kennedy).

Kucinich? Nader?

Your Paul blinders are truly effective.

By: C W

C W — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 18:18:00 +0000

Eh, I wish Bernie Sanders or Franken would run for office :(

By: dustin potter

dustin potter — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 18:06:00 +0000

much like boing boing reads every comment here? i think you misunderstand the role of newsletters pre-internet.

By: C W

C W — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 18:04:00 +0000

Right, I wish he would just acknowledge his mistakes WRT the newsletters so we could get through the rest of his goddamned awful ideas.

By: Navin_Johnson

Navin_Johnson — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 18:01:00 +0000

Hint = raging, blatant neo-confederate/Bircher racism.

“best economical policy” lulz..

By: AlexD

AlexD — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 17:59:00 +0000

Not necessarily. The Constitution actually has this built in feature called the ability to create Amendments. It’s pretty cool, you should totally check it out!

Based on the current Constitution, I would say that the CRA does in fact violate the Constitution. And no I am not arguing with the morality or even that I disagree with it. However, I think they should have done it right by making it an actual Amendment to the Constitution not just another Act.

By: AlexD

AlexD — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 17:55:00 +0000

In all seriousness, I think that there certainly is a time and a place for the Federal government to step in when it thinks states are out of line or abusing groups of people. But to me, it just seems like individual states can look after the the needs of it’s own people better than the Federal government can. I mean the way it stands states like NY and CA have more say over laws that effect smaller states like NH and VT than their own residents do. Doesn’t really seem right…

By: C W

C W — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 17:55:00 +0000

“In all seriousness, I think that there certainly is a time and a place for the Federal government to step in when it thinks states are out of line or abusing groups of people.”

Then your viewpoint is at odds with Ron Paul, who only believes this is such with white Christian males.

By: Piotr Ługowski

Piotr Ługowski — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 17:54:00 +0000

What a shameful newsletter and it is connected to the man with iron bounds of some past acquaintance. He might have the best economical and foreign policy, but these are minor things for the potential president. They are easily trumped by this! Who really cares about going bankrupt or waging another war when theres is a hint of a hint of racism?

By: C W

C W — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 17:53:00 +0000

“If all you withdrawal federal oversight, does everyone suddenly become a segregationist, pro-life homophobe?”
http://www.omg-facts.com/view/Facts/20149

No, they already are, some human rights are needed to be kept in check by the Federal government.You apparently don’t pay attention to the language that’s STILL in State constitutions.

By: p1w1

p1w1 — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 17:51:00 +0000

I don’t quite understand the leap made between the federal and state level, namely that the only thing that prevents states from acting like a gaggle of assholes is the federal government looming over them. If all you withdrawal federal oversight, does everyone suddenly become a segregationist, pro-life homophobe?

By: AlexD

AlexD — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 17:51:00 +0000

YES!! lol