Still swiftboating and muddying the waters? Still not talking about Murray Rothbard's role in this all?





Well lets look at some actual facts:
----------------------------------BEGIN

In early 2008, this article revealed that "a half-dozen longtime libertarian activists—including some still close to Paul" had identified Rockwell as the "chief ghostwriter" of the Ron Paul newsletters published from "roughly 1989 to 1994."

Financial records from 1985 and 2001 show that Rockwell, Paul's congressional chief of staff from 1978 to 1982, was a vice president of Ron Paul & Associates, the corporation that published the Ron Paul Political Report and the Ron Paul Survival Report. The company was dissolved in 2001. During the period when the most incendiary items appeared—roughly 1989 to 1994—Rockwell and the prominent libertarian theorist Murray Rothbard championed an open strategy of exploiting racial and class resentment to build a coalition with populist "paleoconservatives," producing a flurry of articles and manifestos whose racially charged talking points and vocabulary mirrored the controversial Paul newsletters recently unearthed by The New Republic. To this day Rockwell remains a friend and advisor to Paul—accompanying him to major media appearances; promoting his candidacy on the LewRockwell.com blog; publishing his books; and peddling an array of the avuncular Texas congressman's recent writings and audio recordings.

Rockwell has denied responsibility for the newsletters' contents to The New Republic's Jamie Kirchick. Rockwell twice declined to discuss the matter with reason, maintaining this week that he had "nothing to say." He has characterized discussion of the newsletters as "hysterical smears aimed at political enemies" of The New Republic. Paul himself called the controversy "old news" and "ancient history" when we reached him last week, and he has not responded to further request for comment.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
You don't think Murray Rothbard, is worth looking at?

"Equality is not in the natural order of things, and the crusade to make everyone equal in every respect (except before the law) is certain to have disastrous consequences." - Murray Rothbard
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

he also wrote film reviews under a pen name (anonymously) .. so he was no stranger to trying to protect himself while expressing what he truly thought..

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch5.html
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2010/07/murray-rothbard-lew-rockwell-and.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/still-states-greatest-enemy.html

----------------------------

In 1993, Rothbard wrote about Malcolm X and discussed the possibility of a separate state for blacks, but concluded that it would "require massive "foreign aid" from the U.S.A.". He also described black nationalism as "a phony nationalism" that was "beginning to look like a drive for an aggravated form of coerced parasitism over the white population."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard218.html

-------------------------------------------------------




I am seriously disappointed that people here can connect the dots to Dr. Paul yet Rothbard is clearly innocent.

He just happened to die in 1995... and we've heard nothing about newsletter content as inflammatory as when he was involved, since.

Get real people. It wasn't Ron Paul. The secret is in the grave at this point.

>> ^hpqp:

Cutting the opportunity for middle and lower classes to get educated (and, you know, stay alive thanks to healthcare) is the BEST way to let our future be continually in the hands of rich people living in mansions far far away.
>> ^marbles:
>> ^ghark:
"Paul, a longtime critic of federal spending not authorized by the Constitution, calls for eliminating the federal Education, Commerce, Energy, Interior, and Housing and Urban Development Departments.
He also wants to abolish the Transportation Security Agency, end corporate subsidies, plus eliminate all foreign aid and spending on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."
I noticed he wants to cut the corporate tax rate to 15% as well.
No public education, no healthcare, rich pay less taxes and get richer.
Sounds exciting.

It is exciting. Is there any other candidate even saying we should end corporate welfare, let alone proposing a budget doing so?
The corporate tax rate helps small business owners. Corporations pay little to no taxes now as it is. Exemptions and offshore loopholes only work for big business. And the only candidate that wants to get rid of the corrupt tax system is Paul.
No public education and no healthcare are false arguments. Our future and our health shouldn't be decided by imperial government agents living in a mansion far far away.
Everybody pays less taxes, and we all prosper.



Who's cutting opportunities? Oh, yes. You live in the bizarro world where taking from some people (denying them opportunities) is actually providing opportunities for others. At best, you can hope for a net loss (and net gain) of 0 opportunities. In reality, we have to rely on financing the future of our children just to stay ahead. So how did those "rich people living in mansions" get so rich? By finding a niche in this corrupt system or succeeding in spite of it? In the real world, the only real opportunities are ones you recognize for yourself. Helping our fellow man should be our duty, but coercion by the barrel of a gun is tyranny.

Supporting the status quo is the BEST way to let our future be continually in the hands of the few.

Cutting the opportunity for middle and lower classes to get educated (and, you know, stay alive thanks to healthcare) is the BEST way to let our future be continually in the hands of rich people living in mansions far far away.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^ghark:
"Paul, a longtime critic of federal spending not authorized by the Constitution, calls for eliminating the federal Education, Commerce, Energy, Interior, and Housing and Urban Development Departments.
He also wants to abolish the Transportation Security Agency, end corporate subsidies, plus eliminate all foreign aid and spending on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."
I noticed he wants to cut the corporate tax rate to 15% as well.
No public education, no healthcare, rich pay less taxes and get richer.
Sounds exciting.

It is exciting. Is there any other candidate even saying we should end corporate welfare, let alone proposing a budget doing so?
The corporate tax rate helps small business owners. Corporations pay little to no taxes now as it is. Exemptions and offshore loopholes only work for big business. And the only candidate that wants to get rid of the corrupt tax system is Paul.
No public education and no healthcare are false arguments. Our future and our health shouldn't be decided by imperial government agents living in a mansion far far away.
Everybody pays less taxes, and we all prosper.

>> ^ghark:

"Paul, a longtime critic of federal spending not authorized by the Constitution, calls for eliminating the federal Education, Commerce, Energy, Interior, and Housing and Urban Development Departments.
He also wants to abolish the Transportation Security Agency, end corporate subsidies, plus eliminate all foreign aid and spending on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."
I noticed he wants to cut the corporate tax rate to 15% as well.
No public education, no healthcare, rich pay less taxes and get richer.
Sounds exciting.


It is exciting. Is there any other candidate even saying we should end corporate welfare, let alone proposing a budget doing so?

The corporate tax rate helps small business owners. Corporations pay little to no taxes now as it is. Exemptions and offshore loopholes only work for big business. And the only candidate that wants to get rid of the corrupt tax system is Paul.

No public education and no healthcare are false arguments. Our future and our health shouldn't be decided by imperial government agents living in a mansion far far away.

Everybody pays less taxes, and we all prosper.

"Paul, a longtime critic of federal spending not authorized by the Constitution, calls for eliminating the federal Education, Commerce, Energy, Interior, and Housing and Urban Development Departments.

He also wants to abolish the Transportation Security Agency, end corporate subsidies, plus eliminate all foreign aid and spending on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."

I noticed he wants to cut the corporate tax rate to 15% as well.

No public education, no healthcare, rich pay less taxes and get richer.

Sounds exciting.

One thing that really irks me about the *humanitarian situation in much of Africa (in addition to what @gwiz665 pointed out) is that there are so many separate organisations (major bureaucratic money drain), many of which do nothing but enrich dictatorial gvts in power (and that includes the official gvt foreign aid), while perpetuating a mentality of "assistedness" (for lack of a better word) in the local population. On top of that, while food and medicine is being poured in by well-meaning ignoramuses, little to nothing is being done to educate, and even less to decrease the fertility rate (cf. Herr Ratface 16). The basic aid (food/meds/shelter) should be systematically accompanied by education and sex ed/contraceptives; less kids = less mouths to feed = more resources to educate the existing kids = better working society (and less dying kids, of course). And why is there so little being done in this direction? Fucking religion. /rant (yes, ^it's full of gross generalisations, that's one of rants' aspects.)


Damn, that was a bit more than "one thing", sorry.

Bet they still send out foreign aid.

Good point, but stupidity and lack of education often go hand in hand, and some cultures are tailored around preying on functional societies. The point is, a proper risk evaluation wasn't done when considering immigration. Ideology above all reason. Tragic really.

Populist opponents of liberal immigration laws use foreign aid as an alibi, but even that is ruled by ideology and opportunism. Only fair trade works. (not the hippie brand - actual trade with proper wages being the rule)>> ^hpqp:

You're amalgamating two quite separate things: terrorism and crime. The latter has everything to do with lack of education (including basic civic behaviour sometimes), of money, and/or is a result of immigration with purely criminal intent (yes, that exists too). The former, however, needs only nationalistic or, in this case, religious ideology to be its fuel. Most (if not all) recent Islamist terrorists have come from middle-to-upper class families, have usually been well educated and had no "criminal gain" (i.e. $$) to be made from their actions.
>> ^Smugglarn:
You make the same mistake as the media in Sweden and Norway; labeling all immigrants and refugees as "foreigners". The problem with terrorism, crime, rape etc is fairly specific to different ethnic and religious groups of refugees: Somalis, Iraqis, Albanians etc. Not all of them, but they are dramatically over represented. I happen to know a an MP that is of Iraqi descent, but she is an atheist and I would guess from, if not upper class, then upper middle class. So that would be dominating factors, but knowing that - importing violent, uneducated fanatics?
The right wants cheap labour. The left wants votes to bring down the right. The middle and lower classes lose - including a lot of immigrants that have done nothing but being well mannered citizens of a secular democracy.
Oh, and do not think for a minute integrated immigrants feel sympathetic with the criminal element. Only left wing stooges do that - often in the media.
>> ^Yogi:
So now foreigners can't even be trusted in countries because they have bombs and they're there to blow up people? Even if it turns out to be a foreigner how the fuck do you two explain all the foreigners that day who DIDN'T blow anything up? The country is full of fucking morons and only a very select few of them post here, remember sifters there's tons of motherfuckers who actually think like this.
Also why does anything even genuine sentiment on Twitter sounds like you're being an asshole?
"I fear that many 100s could be dead. Poor poor poor guard that worked in the first floor. ,"

>> ^marbles:

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Both parties bro, both. You can't have one, without the other. (Of course, the Republican side is worse.)

Neither party is a perfect fit for me either. But the big Republican idea of cutting "spending" and insisting on no taxes for the rich leads us where this video says it will.
Democrats are insufficiently resolute in their opposition to this idea, but you shouldn't pretend that this makes them equally guilty for the promotion of these bad ideas amongst the populace.
It's the difference between a squadmate who runs away when the bullets start flying, and the people firing bullets at both of you. Neither are going to be your favorite people in the world when the dust settles, but to condemn them equally as if their actions differ only by a trivial matter of degree seems like an injustice to me.

Netrunner, why are you blinded by partisan theater?
http://videosift.com/video/Obama-s-Economic-Policy-is-a-Charade-of-lies

Michael Hudson:
What’s inefficient? Paying for people on Medicaid. Got to cut it. What’s inefficient? Medicare. Got to cut it. What’s inefficient? Paying Social Security. What is efficient? Giving $13 trillion to Wall Street for a bailout. Now, how on earth can the administration say, in the last three years we have given $13 trillion to Wall Street, but then, in between 2040 and 2075, we may lose $1 trillion, no money for the people?
[...]
They’re going to have to decide what to cut back. So they’re going to cut back the bone and they’re going to keep the fat, basically. They’re going to say–they’re going to try to panic the population into acquiescing in a Democratic Party sellout by cutting back payments to the people–Social Security, Medicare–while making sure that they pay the Pentagon, they pay the foreign aid, they pay Wall Street.


Who's blinded by partisan theater?

I'm not gonna bother with the video clip, but not a single sentence in the entire quote from Michael Hudson was true.

That said, if you think Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security should stay as they are, and Wall Street should have to contribute more to the debt (say, with more taxes), then everything you want is antithetical to the Republican party.

Why exactly do you assume that Democrats are secretly working with the Republicans to implement the Republican policy platform?

I feel like we get the Republican party's policies no matter who's actually in office too. But my solution is to try to make sure all the Republicans lose their seats, so the Democrats will have to put up or shut up.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Both parties bro, both. You can't have one, without the other. (Of course, the Republican side is worse.)

Neither party is a perfect fit for me either. But the big Republican idea of cutting "spending" and insisting on no taxes for the rich leads us where this video says it will.
Democrats are insufficiently resolute in their opposition to this idea, but you shouldn't pretend that this makes them equally guilty for the promotion of these bad ideas amongst the populace.
It's the difference between a squadmate who runs away when the bullets start flying, and the people firing bullets at both of you. Neither are going to be your favorite people in the world when the dust settles, but to condemn them equally as if their actions differ only by a trivial matter of degree seems like an injustice to me.


Netrunner, why are you blinded by partisan theater?

http://videosift.com/video/Obama-s-Economic-Policy-is-a-Charade-of-lies

Michael Hudson:
What’s inefficient? Paying for people on Medicaid. Got to cut it. What’s inefficient? Medicare. Got to cut it. What’s inefficient? Paying Social Security. What is efficient? Giving $13 trillion to Wall Street for a bailout. Now, how on earth can the administration say, in the last three years we have given $13 trillion to Wall Street, but then, in between 2040 and 2075, we may lose $1 trillion, no money for the people?
[...]
They’re going to have to decide what to cut back. So they’re going to cut back the bone and they’re going to keep the fat, basically. They’re going to say–they’re going to try to panic the population into acquiescing in a Democratic Party sellout by cutting back payments to the people–Social Security, Medicare–while making sure that they pay the Pentagon, they pay the foreign aid, they pay Wall Street.

[Interviewer]: So, what do you think? Good versus evil. We’re playing out the debt struggle and the debt ceiling issue. And if we don’t raise the debt ceiling, we’ll be in the apocalypse. What do you make of it all?

HUDSON: I think it’s evil working with evil.... If you have to choose between paying Social Security and Wall Street, pay our clients, Wall Street.

***

What’s inefficient? Paying for people on Medicaid. Got to cut it. What’s inefficient? Medicare. Got to cut it. What’s inefficient? Paying Social Security. What is efficient? Giving $13 trillion to Wall Street for a bailout. Now, how on earth can the administration say, in the last three years we have given $13 trillion to Wall Street, but then, in between 2040 and 2075, we may lose $1 trillion, no money for the people?
***

It’s not about the debt ceiling. It’s about making an agreement now under an emergency conditions. You remember what Obama’s staff aide Rahm Emanuel said. He said a crisis is too important to waste. They’re using this crisis as a chance to ram through a financial policy, an anti-Medicare, anti-Medicaid, anti—selling out Social Security that they could never do under the normal course of things.

***

They’re not going to cut back the war in Libya.

***

They’re going to have to decide what to cut back. So they’re going to cut back the bone and they’re going to keep the fat, basically. They’re going to say–they’re going to try to panic the population into acquiescing in a Democratic Party sellout by cutting back payments to the people–Social Security, Medicare–while making sure that they pay the Pentagon, they pay the foreign aid, they pay Wall Street.

[Interviewer]: Yeah. But what–I hear you. But what I’m–I’m saying, what could be an alternative policy? For example, don’t raise the debt ceiling. Number two, raise taxes on the wealthy. Number three, cut back military spending. I mean, there are ways to do this without having to borrow more money, aren’t there?

HUDSON: Of course.
***

Of course they could cut back the fat. Of course what they should do is change the tax system. Of course they should get rid of the Bush tax cuts. And the one good thing in President Obama’s speech two days ago was he used the term spending on tax cuts. So that’s not the same thing as raising taxes. He said just cut spending by cutting spending on tax cuts for the financial sector, for the speculators who count all of their income that they get, billions of income, as capital gains, taxed at 15 percent instead of normal income at 35 percent. Let’s get rid of the tax loopholes that favor Wall Street.

***

Mr. Obama has always known who has been contributing primarily to his political campaigns. We know where his loyalties lie now. And, basically, he promised change because that’s what people would vote for, and he delivered the change constituency to the campaign contributors...

It's easy to scoff at other human's rights when you're in the majority that decides the value affixed to those rights. But what if you weren't?

Whites are already minorities, both by corruption and deliberately erasing American principles and history. Or didn't you notice that Whites are exempt from equal protection under the law ("hate crimes") when the assailant(s) are Black? Either everyone has the same rights or no one has any rights. And right now, you know as well as I do if you utter anything a minority finds offensive in 'polite' company--including demonstrable facts--our vicious, retarded 'multi-cultural' society-keepers will escort you to the street. And really, what is a "minority" anyway? Women outnumber men and yet the former remains a minority. Whites are already minorities in California. There is no "reverse affirmative action" there.

Let me put it in a way that might pique your sensibilities. It's only a matter of time before white people are no longer the majority in the US. I'm just assuming you're white, by the way. So, let's say Latinos and Hispanics make up the majority vote in ten years or so: let's say it's the year 2022.

And let's say they think you should pay trillions in foreign aid for South America and Mexico, and so they vote that as national policy. And let's say they think the US should protect interests in that region, so they send a lot of the poor, disenfranchised whites (who in this version of the future now make up the majority of the military) to be international defense for places like Mexico and Guatemala and Brasil and so on.

And they start to talk how they're the indigenous people of the Americas, and white people are just trespassers who staked their claim via conquest and war.

This is a retarded argument; I know you didn't create it, but yeah, it's out there, and "they" will believe anything as "they" have never been taught differently. These "clever" lefties who claim Whites were trespassers in primitive centuries the world over is ridiculous. Back then there were no unified nations with solid borders, language and culture in the New World to invade, just warring Indian "nations". They forget that England and France, countries filled with White guys--were at war with each other for centuries. And let's not forget all the Asian nations, each one a cultural gem...that wants all other Asian peoples destroyed. The Chinese and Japanese are mortal enemies, and neither likes Koreans.

Within years, you and your family are deported to Denmark - that is if any of you survived the civil war. And what if you lose the right to protest, or vote, or the right of Habeas Corpus? Who will stand up for you? Those already oppressed who were once in the majority? Or would you want some Libertarian-Latino to recognize your rights because you are a living, breathing human being?

If Mexican and African minorities are the future for America, I don't expect any respect of Whites' rights, or right to exist, just like now. There's a whole poor-me victimization industry out there. They create enemies (and excuses) out of whole cloth.

If you want a glimpse of America's fucked-up future, look at Mexico. Mexicans are fine people and Mexican immigrants who assimilate have enriched America, yet somehow their original cultural model in Mexico is simply fucked, an entire nation with enormous natural resources yet run by kleptocrats and drug lords. Anyone concerned with American 'plutocracy' should view the shit going on down yonder.

You sort-of asked but I'm telling you--all of you--anyway. When the White American population falls below 50%, it's Game Over for American principles. America in 2050 will be an even bigger parody of what it is now. Detroit is the future of America. Brokeass idiot California is the future of America. Americans all over are voting with their feet right now. They're leaving liberal meccas and moving to business-friendly states with low taxes (don't expect to hear anything about it on CNN or MS-DNC). But it can't last. Soon there'll be nowhere to run.

I've already made peace with the idea that there will be a civil war, hopefully States against the federal leviathan. And I fully expect DC to turn a war of principles into a racial thang to save its ugly ass.

This isn't about racial "superiority" in the slightest, but if you'll direct your attention to the screen, which races have invented the most advanced tech, including the best kinds of government (so far)? Don't answer that, you'll just be nailed to the cross of tolerance.

I'm Jewish (by blood, not faith) so I figure I'm screwed anyway. I guess I can scooch to Israel. Observe that many of the new kickass technologies were invented by Israelis, while Silicon Valley is stuck holding its dick with eco-green bullshit. "Next year in Jerusalem!" Nice and peaceful over there.

Really, I don't overly give a shit any more. The wrong people now control schools that shouldn't even exist, so the generations coming up are ignorami. The wrong peeps run most of the media and entertainment that arguably appeal to the worst sides of humanity. Freedom is hard work. Who wants that?

Getting angry at me for telling the truth will just waste your time. I already know how you FEEL. Those loudly announcing that neurosurgeons and witch doctors are cultural equals in the name of multicultural tolerance now run the show. And when the show ends they quietly go see the neurosurgeon.

Libertarian ethos ain't gonna save us. Neither will socialism. Mayhap it would be better if the world ended next year.


>> ^blankfist:

>> ^quantumushroom:
You can't hold a trial for a vermin who declares war on an entire society, hell, an entire civilization. It's as moronic as trying to "understand"--in the moment--the socio-cultural-economic motives of someone trying to kill you in an alley.
All we had to do was threaten to level mecca and the 'good' muslims would've turned his raggedy ass in by September 13th, 2001.
War works.

Of course we can hold trial for someone who declares war on entire societies. Yes, very much so. We can hold trial, or at least attempt to hold trial, for anyone. And we should.
It's easy to scoff at other human's rights when you're in the majority that decides the value affixed to those rights. But what if you weren't?
Let me put it in a way that might pique your sensibilities. It's only a matter of time before white people are no longer the majority in the US. I'm just assuming you're white, by the way. So, let's say Latinos and Hispanics make up the majority vote in ten years or so: let's say it's the year 2022.
And let's say they think you should pay trillions in foreign aid for South America and Mexico, and so they vote that as national policy. And let's say they think the US should protect interests in that region, so they send a lot of the poor, disenfranchised whites (who in this version of the future now make up the majority of the military) to be international defense for places like Mexico and Guatemala and Brasil and so on.
And they start to talk how they're the indigenous people of the Americas, and white people are just trespassers who staked their claim via conquest and war. Within years, you and your family are deported to Denmark - that is if any of you survived the civil war. And what if you lose the right to protest, or vote, or the right of Habeas Corpus? Who will stand up for you? Those already oppressed who were once in the majority? Or would you want some Libertarian-Latino to recognize your rights because you are a living, breathing human being?

>> ^quantumushroom:

You can't hold a trial for a vermin who declares war on an entire society, hell, an entire civilization. It's as moronic as trying to "understand"--in the moment--the socio-cultural-economic motives of someone trying to kill you in an alley.
All we had to do was threaten to level mecca and the 'good' muslims would've turned his raggedy ass in by September 13th, 2001.
War works.


Of course we can hold trial for someone who declares war on entire societies. Yes, very much so. We can hold trial, or at least attempt to hold trial, for anyone. And we should.

It's easy to scoff at other human's rights when you're in the majority that decides the value affixed to those rights. But what if you weren't?

Let me put it in a way that might pique your sensibilities. It's only a matter of time before white people are no longer the majority in the US. I'm just assuming you're white, by the way. So, let's say Latinos and Hispanics make up the majority vote in ten years or so: let's say it's the year 2022.

And let's say they think you should pay trillions in foreign aid for South America and Mexico, and so they vote that as national policy. And let's say they think the US should protect interests in that region, so they send a lot of the poor, disenfranchised whites (who in this version of the future now make up the majority of the military) to be international defense for places like Mexico and Guatemala and Brasil and so on.

And they start to talk how they're the indigenous people of the Americas, and white people are just trespassers who staked their claim via conquest and war. Within years, you and your family are deported to Denmark - that is if any of you survived the civil war. And what if you lose the right to protest, or vote, or the right of Habeas Corpus? Who will stand up for you? Those already oppressed who were once in the majority? Or would you want some Libertarian-Latino to recognize your rights because you are a living, breathing human being?

>> ^lantern53:

I would think a medical doctor would know more about fiscal responsibility than a comedian who doesn't even write his own lines.
Anyone with any sense knows that foreign aid gets squandered by potentates, tribal leaders, etc.
Amazing that we have even one senator who cares how taxpayer money is spent. It is not the government's money to spend, it came from the taxpayer.


We're sending them a Billion dollars. 5 million gets wasted you think the other 995 million helping people is just stupid? Seriously people are dying and you're just completely uncaring about that. Probably because it's been driven out of you.

See people aren't naturally this way...it has to be drilled into them to not care about other human beings and it takes a lot.

I would think a medical doctor would know more about fiscal responsibility than a comedian who doesn't even write his own lines.

Anyone with any sense knows that foreign aid gets squandered by potentates, tribal leaders, etc.

Amazing that we have even one senator who cares how taxpayer money is spent. It is not the government's money to spend, it came from the taxpayer.