Comments on: The Fifth of November http://austrolabe.com/2007/11/15/the-fifth-of-november/ Sat, 07 Jan 2012 13:12:52 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc hourly 1 By: Eudaemonion http://austrolabe.com/2007/11/15/the-fifth-of-november/comment-page-1/#comment-80352 Eudaemonion Fri, 11 Apr 2008 10:00:55 +0000 http://austrolabe.com/2007/11/15/the-fifth-of-november/#comment-80352 James is allergic to the idea that humans can come together and co-operate on issues of mutual concern, and prefers forcible, government mediated, co-operation brought about by taxation and government's monopoly on force. James is allergic to the idea that humans can come together and co-operate on issues of mutual concern, and prefers forcible, government mediated, co-operation brought about by taxation and government’s monopoly on force.

]]> By: George Carty http://austrolabe.com/2007/11/15/the-fifth-of-november/comment-page-1/#comment-80251 George Carty Thu, 10 Apr 2008 20:06:35 +0000 http://austrolabe.com/2007/11/15/the-fifth-of-november/#comment-80251 James, how would you respond to anarcho-mutualists who claim that it is the capitalist State, not the market, which is to blame for corporate power? Does the taxation system favour the large over the small? Aren't a lot of the big corporate bete-noirs dependent either on government-granted monopolies - either patents (Big Pharma, electronics) or copyrights (recording, movies, computer software) - or on direct government subsidies (agribusiness, aerospace, armaments)? James, how would you respond to anarcho-mutualists who claim that it is the capitalist State, not the market, which is to blame for corporate power?

Does the taxation system favour the large over the small?

Aren’t a lot of the big corporate bete-noirs dependent either on government-granted monopolies – either patents (Big Pharma, electronics) or copyrights (recording, movies, computer software) – or on direct government subsidies (agribusiness, aerospace, armaments)?

]]> By: Abu Omar http://austrolabe.com/2007/11/15/the-fifth-of-november/comment-page-1/#comment-79739 Abu Omar Mon, 07 Apr 2008 18:07:10 +0000 http://austrolabe.com/2007/11/15/the-fifth-of-november/#comment-79739 A good article on the potential campaign of Bob Barr: http://spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13009 A good article on the potential campaign of Bob Barr: http://spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13009

]]> By: Abu Omar http://austrolabe.com/2007/11/15/the-fifth-of-november/comment-page-1/#comment-79725 Abu Omar Mon, 07 Apr 2008 16:05:24 +0000 http://austrolabe.com/2007/11/15/the-fifth-of-november/#comment-79725 Well, for those of us who liked the platform of Ron Paul, former Republican congressman <a href="http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12640">Bob Barr</a> seems to be getting prepared to run for president on the Libertarian Party ticket. Like Ron Paul, he is committed to fighting the growing encroachment on our civil liberties, as well as opposing global interventionism, including the Iraq war, and is an advocate of small government. Barr may be a good option for those properly disillusioned with the two major party candidates in a McCain vs. Clinton match up, but find Ralph Nader as being a very non-serious candidate. Well, for those of us who liked the platform of Ron Paul, former Republican congressman Bob Barr seems to be getting prepared to run for president on the Libertarian Party ticket. Like Ron Paul, he is committed to fighting the growing encroachment on our civil liberties, as well as opposing global interventionism, including the Iraq war, and is an advocate of small government. Barr may be a good option for those properly disillusioned with the two major party candidates in a McCain vs. Clinton match up, but find Ralph Nader as being a very non-serious candidate.

]]> By: Burnum http://austrolabe.com/2007/11/15/the-fifth-of-november/comment-page-1/#comment-53408 Burnum Mon, 19 Nov 2007 06:03:09 +0000 http://austrolabe.com/2007/11/15/the-fifth-of-november/#comment-53408 "If you want a clear and particularly concise take on Racism by Ron Paul, then have a gander. If you’d rather engage in guilt by association, that is your God given right to do so, damn the man who would infringe on it." I hate too repeat my self but I already had a point about that. "The official story has a number of basic logical flaws that have never once been addressed, aside from response of “Well, he denied it, I believed him” (see point #1). For instance, how such an article could go out without Ron Paul knowing. Why no one would have written letters to the editor in response. Why Ron Paul wouldn’t have issued a retraction early on in the newsletter itself. How Ron Paul could commission an article in response to the LA Riots, a time when people were being aware of the need for racial sensitivity, with complete and utter indifference. Why the article would cite personal anecdotes from generic “experts” who have no credentials whatsoever, other than the fact that they happen to be close personal friends of Ron Paul." The article in question: http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.african.american/msg/c8668bd3662b0fa5 “If you want a clear and particularly concise take on Racism by Ron Paul, then have a gander. If you’d rather engage in guilt by association, that is your God given right to do so, damn the man who would infringe on it.”

I hate too repeat my self but I already had a point about that.

“The official story has a number of basic logical flaws that have never once been addressed, aside from response of “Well, he denied it, I believed him” (see point #1). For instance, how such an article could go out without Ron Paul knowing. Why no one would have written letters to the editor in response. Why Ron Paul wouldn’t have issued a retraction early on in the newsletter itself. How Ron Paul could commission an article in response to the LA Riots, a time when people were being aware of the need for racial sensitivity, with complete and utter indifference. Why the article would cite personal anecdotes from generic “experts” who have no credentials whatsoever, other than the fact that they happen to be close personal friends of Ron Paul.”

The article in question:
http://groups.google.com/group.....d3662b0fa5

]]> By: Shadower http://austrolabe.com/2007/11/15/the-fifth-of-november/comment-page-1/#comment-53350 Shadower Mon, 19 Nov 2007 01:15:17 +0000 http://austrolabe.com/2007/11/15/the-fifth-of-november/#comment-53350 Burnum: For the past 7 years Bush's speech writer has been on strike, he's been winging it. :o) Burnum: For the past 7 years Bush’s speech writer has been on strike, he’s been winging it. :o )

]]> By: james http://austrolabe.com/2007/11/15/the-fifth-of-november/comment-page-1/#comment-53305 james Sun, 18 Nov 2007 23:54:16 +0000 http://austrolabe.com/2007/11/15/the-fifth-of-november/#comment-53305 Ron Paul, really? We have been down this road before. Libertarianism is answer to a very foolish question. Libertarianism ignors the fundimental reality of Corporatist Capitalism. It ignors the fundimental power difference between the idividual and transglobal coporations. When the idvidual tries to negotiate against a titian like Exxon-Mobile guess who wins? Please, please, please look at history. Unregulated Capitalism always ends up with a vast pool of poor and a tiny privlaged elite. Marx was right, left to its own devices Capitalism will destroy itself. If you really hate the welfare state, then walk the walk. Stay out of government run schools, don't use government supplied water, and when you get sick pay your own fair, or quietly die in a corner if you lack the funds--just like they did in Charles Dickens time. Ron Paul, really? We have been down this road before. Libertarianism is answer to a very foolish question. Libertarianism ignors the fundimental reality of Corporatist Capitalism. It ignors the fundimental power difference between the idividual and transglobal coporations.
When the idvidual tries to negotiate against a titian like Exxon-Mobile guess who wins? Please, please, please look at history. Unregulated Capitalism always ends up with a vast pool of poor and a tiny privlaged elite. Marx was right, left to its own devices Capitalism will destroy itself.

If you really hate the welfare state, then walk the walk. Stay out of government run schools, don’t use government supplied water, and when you get sick pay your own fair, or quietly die in a corner if you lack the funds–just like they did in Charles Dickens time.

]]> By: Eudaemonion http://austrolabe.com/2007/11/15/the-fifth-of-november/comment-page-1/#comment-53055 Eudaemonion Sun, 18 Nov 2007 09:40:15 +0000 http://austrolabe.com/2007/11/15/the-fifth-of-november/#comment-53055 Antish, Determining guilt or blame, wholly or in part, based on nothing more concrete than association, or a failure to be omnipotent, is patently ridiculous and is in itself the perpetuation of a tribal mindset. Just because some White Supremacists like the idea of individual liberty and responsibility, <b>which is one's fundamental right to do with as one wishes</b>, suddenly the character of Ron Paul and the agenda of Constitutionality and freedom is suspect? What collectivist nonsense! Burnum, If you want a clear and particularly concise take on Racism by Ron Paul, then have a <a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul381.html" title="Government and Racism">gander</a>. If you'd rather engage in guilt by association, that is your God given right to do so, damn the man who would infringe on it. Personally, I think giving individuals the benefit of the doubt, and allowing them to express themselves clearly and unequivocally is healthier than suspicion and attribution of ulterior motives. Then there are the devils you know. ;) Antish,

Determining guilt or blame, wholly or in part, based on nothing more concrete than association, or a failure to be omnipotent, is patently ridiculous and is in itself the perpetuation of a tribal mindset.

Just because some White Supremacists like the idea of individual liberty and responsibility, which is one’s fundamental right to do with as one wishes, suddenly the character of Ron Paul and the agenda of Constitutionality and freedom is suspect? What collectivist nonsense!

Burnum,

If you want a clear and particularly concise take on Racism by Ron Paul, then have a gander. If you’d rather engage in guilt by association, that is your God given right to do so, damn the man who would infringe on it.

Personally, I think giving individuals the benefit of the doubt, and allowing them to express themselves clearly and unequivocally is healthier than suspicion and attribution of ulterior motives.

Then there are the devils you know. ;)

]]> By: Burnum http://austrolabe.com/2007/11/15/the-fifth-of-november/comment-page-1/#comment-52826 Burnum Sat, 17 Nov 2007 04:39:16 +0000 http://austrolabe.com/2007/11/15/the-fifth-of-november/#comment-52826 I wrote up a Long Response but Fire Fox crashed on me and my boss ( I don't get much time on the internet) is looking my shoulder so I got a lengthy post somewhere else. That and my English isn't that good (English is a second language.) 1) I suppose that if we believe Ron Paul's change of story after his 1996 confirmation and insisted that he wasn't a racist, then I suppose that we would also have to believe Larry Craig after he retracted his guilty plea and insisted that he definitely wasn't gay. I mean, why would a politician lie in a way that would make him sound innocent? It's way more plausible to believe that a politician would only lie in a way to make himself sound guilty, which can then be retracted after the fact. 2) You don't get to claim full responsibility, and then insist that you aren't responsible. It doesn't work like that. If you want to claim full repsonsibility, then it should be perfectly okay to hold you responsible. 3) The fact that Ron Paul hired a ghostwriter is irrelevant. If Ann Coulter reveals that she hired a ghost writer for one of her books, does that mean that we shouldn't blame her for any of the things that those books say? If George Bush hires a professional speech writer, does that mean that he shouldn't be responsible for his speech? 4) The official story has a number of basic logical flaws that have never once been addressed, aside from response of "Well, he denied it, I believed him" (see point #1). For instance, how such an article could go out without Ron Paul knowing. Why no one would have written letters to the editor in response. Why Ron Paul wouldn't have issued a retraction early on in the newsletter itself. How Ron Paul could commission an article in response to the LA Riots, a time when people were being aware of the need for racial sensitivity, with complete and utter indifference. Why the article would cite personal anecdotes from generic "experts" who have no credentials whatsoever, other than the fact that they happen to be close personal friends of Ron Paul. I wrote up a Long Response but Fire Fox crashed on me and my boss ( I don’t get much time on the internet) is looking my shoulder so I got a lengthy post somewhere else. That and my English isn’t that good (English is a second language.)

1) I suppose that if we believe Ron Paul’s change of story after his 1996 confirmation and insisted that he wasn’t a racist, then I suppose that we would also have to believe Larry Craig after he retracted his guilty plea and insisted that he definitely wasn’t gay. I mean, why would a politician lie in a way that would make him sound innocent? It’s way more plausible to believe that a politician would only lie in a way to make himself sound guilty, which can then be retracted after the fact.

2) You don’t get to claim full responsibility, and then insist that you aren’t responsible. It doesn’t work like that. If you want to claim full repsonsibility, then it should be perfectly okay to hold you responsible.

3) The fact that Ron Paul hired a ghostwriter is irrelevant. If Ann Coulter reveals that she hired a ghost writer for one of her books, does that mean that we shouldn’t blame her for any of the things that those books say? If George Bush hires a professional speech writer, does that mean that he shouldn’t be responsible for his speech?

4) The official story has a number of basic logical flaws that have never once been addressed, aside from response of “Well, he denied it, I believed him” (see point #1). For instance, how such an article could go out without Ron Paul knowing. Why no one would have written letters to the editor in response. Why Ron Paul wouldn’t have issued a retraction early on in the newsletter itself. How Ron Paul could commission an article in response to the LA Riots, a time when people were being aware of the need for racial sensitivity, with complete and utter indifference. Why the article would cite personal anecdotes from generic “experts” who have no credentials whatsoever, other than the fact that they happen to be close personal friends of Ron Paul.

]]> By: dawud http://austrolabe.com/2007/11/15/the-fifth-of-november/comment-page-1/#comment-52808 dawud Sat, 17 Nov 2007 01:38:07 +0000 http://austrolabe.com/2007/11/15/the-fifth-of-november/#comment-52808 I'm not Ron Paul's biggest supporter, although I recognize his virtues and his dedication to the Constitution and liberty of America are admirable even if one is not an American - and his forthrightness on monetary policy and the delusion of paying future debts with imaginary bills is refreshing. Just to respond to Burnum, the quote you relate was written by an intern in Ron Paul's bulletin, not his statement, and he has made that clear, though without identifying the one responsible: <i> In 2001, Paul took "moral responsibility" for the comments printed in his newsletter under his name, telling Texas Monthly magazine that the comments were written by a ghostwriter and did not represent his views. The magazine defended Paul's decision to protect the writer's confidence in 1996, concluding, "In four terms as a U.S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this." In 2007, with the quotes resurfacing, the New York Times Magazine concurred that Paul denied the allegations "quite believably, since the style diverges widely from his own." http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/magazine/22Paul-t.html?ei=5124&en=22ee37525a9fc4f5&ex=1343016000&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink&pagewanted=all I’m not Ron Paul’s biggest supporter, although I recognize his virtues and his dedication to the Constitution and liberty of America are admirable even if one is not an American – and his forthrightness on monetary policy and the delusion of paying future debts with imaginary bills is refreshing.

Just to respond to Burnum, the quote you relate was written by an intern in Ron Paul’s bulletin, not his statement, and he has made that clear, though without identifying the one responsible:

In 2001, Paul took “moral responsibility” for the comments printed in his newsletter under his name, telling Texas Monthly magazine that the comments were written by a ghostwriter and did not represent his views. The magazine defended Paul’s decision to protect the writer’s confidence in 1996, concluding, “In four terms as a U.S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this.” In 2007, with the quotes resurfacing, the New York Times Magazine concurred that Paul denied the allegations “quite believably, since the style diverges widely from his own.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07.....wanted=all

]]>