Indecision 08 Wingnut thread

[Cain]

I'd also like to point out that originally there was a level of respect for Ron Paul that was not exactly found for other Republican candidates on this board.  However, the tactics of his supporters, in addition to the information about his connections and the context of his political beliefs raised a lot of doubts.  The people behind him were...well, the Constitution Party regulars, and the Clinton is the AntiChrist/the UN is going to take over the USA/blacks and Jews are subhuman devils/Theocratic nutcase crowd who used to hang out in compounds in the 90s, waiting for the Apocalypse.

Paul was only really worth supporting in the context that it enraged the Neocon faction of the GOP, who have a long-running feud with the Paleocons.

[Elder Iptuous]

Fair enough.
It seems that the largest sticking point is his rowdy band of supporters.  This is the primary reason i figured he would be popular in the Discordian circles.  They are diverse in their backgrounds and only loosely held together by a common interest in the reduction of the size and scope of centralized federal power.  This, of course, attracts 'strange bedfellows' and i view that as a wonderful trip.  I've never met such a fantastic crowd of the beautiful fringe held together with zealousness born from pent up frustration at the seemingly unstoppable descent into bureaucratic demise.

Of the voting record, i can't seem to find anything that should ring sour here.  The page you linked to misrepresents the aim of his legislation in my view.  I believe this is due to a complete denial of the ability for things of any import to be delegated to the several states rather than decided and handed down from the top.  In that context, all his 'no's seem to be pretty strange, but why shouldn't these things be left to the states? And why would our ilk support their inflexibly being determined at the federal level?  The flag burning thing does seem stupid, though..... Oh, and i disagree with him on the use of the death penalty at the federal level (we just need to administer it wisely)

Regarding his links..... What is 'proto-fascist'? and which militias of that sort is he linked to?  Please define 'far-right'.  It seems currently used as a euphemism for 'uber-hawkish', which is certainly not in keeping with RP's philosophy.  The Orcanus link you gave seems to give an explanation that his support was a conspiracy of conspiracy theorists, or some such nonsense, and tries to pin him with racism... that's a pretty good stretch there.

on your fourth point, i'm not quite sure what your angle is.  If one shares a view with someone else regarding a specific issue, are you saying that you should not cooperate to its' end unless you agree with all else they hold to?  Or are you saying that his conviction against foreign interventionism is a clever ruse carried out for decades?

[tyrannosaurus vex]

http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=98343&catid=188

Denver Hilarity Week begins.

[Iason Ouabache]

http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=98343&catid=188

Denver Hilarity Week begins.

I wish that I could say I was surprised.

[Cain]

Of the voting record, i can't seem to find anything that should ring sour here.  The page you linked to misrepresents the aim of his legislation in my view.  I believe this is due to a complete denial of the ability for things of any import to be delegated to the several states rather than decided and handed down from the top.  In that context, all his 'no's seem to be pretty strange, but why shouldn't these things be left to the states? And why would our ilk support their inflexibly being determined at the federal level?  The flag burning thing does seem stupid, though..... Oh, and i disagree with him on the use of the death penalty at the federal level (we just need to administer it wisely)

On issue 2:

Nothing wrong with pro-life Bills?  I don't see what is especially free about banning abortion and funding for it.  How about this:

"We the People Act - Prohibits the Supreme Court and each federal court from adjudicating any claim or relying on judicial decisions involving: (1) state or local laws, regulations, or policies concerning the free exercise or establishment of religion; (2) the right of privacy, including issues of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or (3) the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation where based upon equal protection of the laws."

He essentially wants to remove the right to take discrimination to the courts, of any sort.  Presumably the magical free market fairy will solve all their problems, but while it makes a lovely story, reality doesn't work like that.

Religious Freedom Restoration Act aims to put churches above the law and undermine the divide between the state and religion.

He wants to undermine labour unions.

He doesn't believe in a Federally mandated minimum wage...because as we know, without regulation, America's top corporations are so giving and friendly towards their workers.

Backs the electoral college to the hilt, despite how first-past-the-post systems automatically make the votes of about half the population worthless.

Wants to make registering for voting harder, by repealing the National Voter Registration Act of 1993.

Repealing the anti-trust laws and trusting the free market sounds like a recipe for disaster.  So naturally Paul is for it.

Hates Iranians and wants to deny Iranian students (and them alone) certain funds.

Obviously has no love for the 14th Ammendment.

Wants to gut Environmental protections worse than Bush.

Promotes the pointless offshore drilling, which would do nothing to reduce the cost of oil in the USA.

Wants to block membership of UNESCO

Wants to withdraw from the ABM treaty, making both China and Russia highly suspicious.

Wants to take over the Panama Canal again.  Sounds like a war in the making.

Like the text says, he wants to reduce the tax burdens of the mega-rich, who already have it far too easy.

Wants parents to have the right to be informed if their child has a venereal disease or abortion.

and

Forbid Federal funding to organizations who do not think homosexuality is evil.

Rearding his links..... What is 'proto-fascist'? and which militias of that sort is he linked to?  Please define 'far-right'.  It seems currently used as a euphemism for 'uber-hawkish', which is certainly not in keeping with RP's philosophy.  The Orcanus link you gave seems to give an explanation that his support was a conspiracy of conspiracy theorists, or some such nonsense, and tries to pin him with racism... that's a pretty good stretch there.

Proto-fascist is a term for rightwing revolutionary populist organizations whose nationalistic, racist, sectarian and social agendas are reminiscient of fascism in terms of organization and aims.  The Patriot Movement in the 90s, who the militias sprung from were a political movement based in populist ultranationalism and focused on an a core mythic ideal of phoenix-like societal rebirth, attained through a return to "traditional values", and have links going back to more overtly fascist movements such as the KKK or Posse Comitatus.  However, it is not quite fascist, because it lacks the centralizing figure of a Fuhrer or Il Duce, despite the best attempts of Howard Phillips.

Ron Paul has given many talks on the militia and Patriot scene.  One such example would be this one detailed by Chip Berlet.  He has giving talks at the Taft Club, a racist organization whose members are part of the same network who feed bullshit racial theories from groups like Aryan Nations to the wider public, attended a Patriot Network banquet in his honour and the Ron Paul Survival Report was frequently read among militia and survivalist groups.

I define far-right as socially authoritarian, often religiously or racially rooted political viewpoints, which often include anti-Semitism, racial segregation, the quashing of the civil rights of minorities, anti-immigration, homophobia and sexism.  Usually hatred of the Federal government is often included in that in the American context, but only in the sense that they view the Federal government as a cultural hegemon of liberal-social values (excuse me while I try not to laugh) and want to devolve power down to more authoritarian and crazy local representatives, making it qualitatively different from the view that the Federal government is overly dangerous and powerful per se.  Its a power-coveting thing, not a principled anti-authoritarian stance.

Hawkishness is not per se an element of the far-right.  It certainly manifests itself there in some ways, but usually a far-right groundswell of opinion takes place during and after a lost war, and thus the hawkishness is linked to nationalist ambitions.  The USA did not lose the Cold War, yet in the wake of it there was a far-right resurgence, which had been building throughout the 80s, so the lack of external hawkishness may be explained in that way.  Furthermore, they often do see themselves waging wars - internally.  Against the gays, Jews, Muslims, blacks and "liberal" or "socialist" elements of American society.  In the 90s, this manifested itself in the worst cases in lone wolf terrorism and vigilantism.  In the 2000s, it has often been linked to attacks on anti-war protestors (not for being against the war, but for being Dirty Fucking Hippies), as well as cases of fake terrorism scares designed to operate like the Italian "Strategy of Tension".

Less violently, but far more mainstream, you have the "culture warriors".  Some, such as Rush Limbaugh, Coulter etc, are chameleons, against the wars in the 90s, and for them now.  But then you have the likes of Pat Buchanan and the Paleocons, who are against the war, are in fact pro-isolation, but also think gays should be thrown in prison, that anyone to the left of Jesse Hems is the next Lenin and that God's law is the only sensible and moral way to rule a country.  Both sides tend to unite on social policy, and their increasing shrill and violent rhetoric does create a discourse which excuses the above actions, knowingly or not.

To make my point about hawkishness more clearly, there are liberal interventionists as well, the classic liberal hawks like the Clintons, Brezinkski and co, who often root their interventionism in international crisis' where America has a strategic interest.  Their social policies are often quite centre of the road (possibly right leaning in some economic cases, thanks to neoliberalism and the fucking DLC) and not overtly authoritarian, racist, sexist etc at least not compared to the current guys.  But they were the ones saying "we have the world's greatest military force, lets use it".

David Neiwert, who runs Orcinus, is a journalist who cut his teeth reporting on the far right - not just their activities, but their beliefs, the context in which they arise, their networks and affliations, how they appeal to the mainstream etc.  On one hand, this may create a "law of fives" effect where he sees fascism where it is not, but on the other hand, he has rarely, if ever, been shown to be very wrong.  It is worth noting who supports Ron Paul, as well as who he chooses to associate with.  The former is simple enough, "who benefits" should be the starting principle of any investigation, and the latter deserves scrutiny as well, since it deals with his self-image, who he feels comfortable relating his views to, and so on and so forth. 

And one key element of the far-right is its conspiracy theorism, and how that impacts on their policies.  Often there are good arguments to be made for certain policies the far right likes - such as the abolishment of the Federal Reserve due to a lack of unaccountability and oversight, or withdrawing from the UN because it doesn't have enough teeth to deal with international issues (though reform is also another option).  However, in the context of far-right politics, both the UN and Federal Reserve are owned by internationalist bankers and socialists (ie TEH JOOS!, at least fairly often) who aim at creating a single global state and forcing Satanic Communism on the USA.  And Ron Paul not only derives support from such crowds (believe me, I am well connected in online conspiracy circles, though my critical thinking abilities have made me numerous enemies, and there are plenty of Paul supporters among the far-right conspiracy fringe who dont give a shit for freedom, except as a slogan to distract from their desire to remake the USA in their image) but he also chooses to associate with such people.  He plays a coy game where he doesn't come out and say what he is thinking, but instead uses policies and his presence in those circles to signal to such people he is one of theirs.  It is kind of secret society-esque, dog whistle politics, but then again I've seen that from Bush as well (Cheney calling anti-war protestors traitors helped spark off some of the far-right violence directed at them) and I think the evidence is sufficient to support such a hypothesis.

on your fourth point, i'm not quite sure what your angle is.  If one shares a view with someone else regarding a specific issue, are you saying that you should not cooperate to its' end unless you agree with all else they hold to?  Or are you saying that his conviction against foreign interventionism is a clever ruse carried out for decades?

Well the thing is they only hold a similar view on the most superficial level.  Much of the antiwar right opposes the war because they see it as some sort of favour to foreigners - and US taxpayers money should not be spent on filthy brown people.  Not because its immoral to kill people for no reason, its just immoral to do it with taxpayer's money.  I don't doubt their position is genuine, its just not the same position as mine.

Furthermore, they are rarely ever interested in an equal working partnership.  If they were, I might be able to stand them more.  As soon as they try and hook up, you get a number of things happening.

Firstly, a lot of their people will try and take leadership positions, or establish vetos over actions.  Secondly, they will start spouting their nonsense conspiracy theories.  Thirdly, they will start expelling or sidelining their enemies.  They almost always effectively end up neutering any organization they get a foothold in, either by petty internal bickering or through ruining their credibility in the mainstream press.  Like the Truthers for example, another organization with lots of LaRouchites in leading positions, who have tried repeatedly to hijack antiwar protests, expel those who speak out against their particular brand of insanity and allowed the media to portray everyone against the war as nutcases.

[Cain]

I roll with a +4 attack bonus against the far-right.

Anyway, Denver looks fun.  "Oh, he only had white supremacist connections and was travelling around Denver WITH A SMALL ASSASSINATION KIT in the back of his car.  What is there to worry about?"

Mark Ames has an article up too:  http://exiledonline.com/rachel-maddows-post-idiotic-commentary/

I just flew back to the U.S., just in time to watch the Democratic Convention's opening night. I'm amazed by how Soviet my country has become, or always was. We love these hokey big ceremonies just as much as any totalitarian country. I flipped the channel away from the Convention coverage and wound up on the opening day of the US Open, and there it was again—more ceremony, with all the hokey Soviet nostalgia that comes with it. Jesus, even the US Open has succumbed, trotting out stars from our Soviet past: Chris Evert, Billie Jean King, Ilie Nastase—I could only hold out long enough to hear John Newcombe's depressing name called out, before immediately flipping the channel, which put me right back on the other, bigger Soviet ceremony, the one in Denver. I always assumed the Russians were the world's worst ceremony-monkeys, because all you saw on their shitty state-controlled TV were endless hokey ceremonies, and tributes to crusty old pigs. I guess we're just as hokey as they are, only with marginally slicker production values, although the slickness-gap is narrowing fast.

[LMNO]

Fuck, Cain.  I was gonna offer a line or two about gutting the Department of Education, but you apparently have the ability, like Alice in Resident Evil: Extinction, to set the motherfucking sky on fire.




"RON PAUL?!"
  \

[Cain]

That was a good hour of writing there, however.  I practically put off breakfast until lunch to complete it.

[Elder Iptuous]

Ah.  I see clearly now.   
Thank you for sacrificing your breakfast.  I should at least let you know that i read it thoroughly.
I can't believe that i didn't see all this stuff from my vantage point!   
I'll try to have more faith in the machine, since that's how it operates in the real world.

[LMNO]

I'll try to have more faith in the machine, since that's how it operates in the real world.

Hold on, there!

There's a big difference between knowing what the Machine™ will do, and having faith in it.

To understand that The Free Market only works in a universe without Greed or Duplicity isn't the same as having "faith" in Greed and Duplicity.

[Cain]

Ah.  I see clearly now.   
Thank you for sacrificing your breakfast.  I should at least let you know that i read it thoroughly.
I can't believe that i didn't see all this stuff from my vantage point!   
I'll try to have more faith in the machine, since that's how it operates in the real world.

How is what I am saying advocating faith in "the machine"?

Or is this a case of "you don't like my candidate, therefore you must be against freedom" a la...well, pretty much every American candidate?  If you're going to engage in childish ad hominem attacks against me instead of debate my points, then I simply wont bother with doing detailed and researched articles, and instead will just cut straight to the slanging match.

Oh, and for the record, I've also criticized Obama (DLC "centrist" like Clinton), Clinton ("Bush but for abortions"), Edwards (voted for the wrong war, probably did something else wrong), Guiliani (annointed son of the Neocon foreign policy), McCain (unstable shameless whore), Huckabee (religious nutcase), Tancredo (hates Mexicans with a passion), Romney (bad taste in fiction) etc etc ad nauseum.  But never mind that, eh?

[Elder Iptuous]

Hold on, there!
There's a big difference between knowing what the Machine™ will do, and having faith in it.
To understand that The Free Market only works in a universe without Greed or Duplicity isn't the same as having "faith" in Greed and Duplicity.

The Free Market does work, and although Greed and Duplicity seek to undermine it, that does not mean we should seek an inflexible centralized planning that will also be subject to the same, no?
I didn't say anything about having faith in Greed and Duplicity.

How is what I am saying advocating faith in "the machine"?
Or is this a case of "you don't like my candidate, therefore you must be against freedom" a la...well, pretty much every American candidate?  If you're going to engage in childish ad hominem attacks against me instead of debate my points, then I simply wont bother with doing detailed and researched articles, and instead will just cut straight to the slanging match.
Oh, and for the record, I've also criticized Obama (DLC "centrist" like Clinton), Clinton ("Bush but for abortions"), Edwards (voted for the wrong war, probably did something else wrong), Guiliani (annointed son of the Neocon foreign policy), McCain (unstable shameless whore), Huckabee (religious nutcase), Tancredo (hates Mexicans with a passion), Romney (bad taste in fiction) etc etc ad nauseum.  But never mind that, eh?

Ok, ok i apologize, i was rather dismissive and didn't mean to hurt feelings.  I certainly didn't mean to ad hominize you.  The articles that you linked to were rather inflammatory, though, and i feel made poorly substantiated claims. 
I'll shut up about it and just enjoin you in the bashing of the other puppets now.... 

[LMNO]

Hold on, there!
There's a big difference between knowing what the Machine™ will do, and having faith in it.
To understand that The Free Market only works in a universe without Greed or Duplicity isn't the same as having "faith" in Greed and Duplicity.

The Free Market does work,

In what sense?  Please to provide citations.

[Cain]

Hold on, there!
There's a big difference between knowing what the Machine™ will do, and having faith in it.
To understand that The Free Market only works in a universe without Greed or Duplicity isn't the same as having "faith" in Greed and Duplicity.

The Free Market does work, and although Greed and Duplicity seek to undermine it, that does not mean we should seek an inflexible centralized planning that will also be subject to the same, no?
I didn't say anything about having faith in Greed and Duplicity.

How is what I am saying advocating faith in "the machine"?
Or is this a case of "you don't like my candidate, therefore you must be against freedom" a la...well, pretty much every American candidate?  If you're going to engage in childish ad hominem attacks against me instead of debate my points, then I simply wont bother with doing detailed and researched articles, and instead will just cut straight to the slanging match.
Oh, and for the record, I've also criticized Obama (DLC "centrist" like Clinton), Clinton ("Bush but for abortions"), Edwards (voted for the wrong war, probably did something else wrong), Guiliani (annointed son of the Neocon foreign policy), McCain (unstable shameless whore), Huckabee (religious nutcase), Tancredo (hates Mexicans with a passion), Romney (bad taste in fiction) etc etc ad nauseum.  But never mind that, eh?

Ok, ok i apologize, i was rather dismissive and didn't mean to hurt feelings.  I certainly didn't mean to ad hominize you.  The articles that you linked to were rather inflammatory, though, and i feel made poorly substantiated claims. 
I'll shut up about it and just enjoin you in the bashing of the other puppets now.... 

OK, but I'm going to have to dispute that Free Market claim.

For the operation of a free market as described by most free market theorists, certain conditions have to be in place, most of which do not occur naturally, and when they do is often only in a limited way.

See the 2001 Nobel Prize for Economics, for "analyses of markets with asymmetric information" by Stiglitz, Akerlof and Spence.

[Cain]

To quote my friends from Sadly, No:

Ho-hum, we condemn the alleged plot to assassinate Barack. . .OH MY GOD, SOMEBODY YELLED AT MICHELLE MALKIN!

http://www.memeorandum.com/080826/p20#a080826p20