Open letter to GOP base on Ron Paul

[Manedwolf]

I just saw a story to the effect that Dennis Kucinich would consider Ron Paul as a running mate.

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/119606963456620.xml&coll=2

I'm not one that ordinarily subscribes to the whole "guilt by association" thing, but if a lunatic like Kucinich likes Paul . . . 

Especially telling is:

"Dr. Paul and Rep. Kucinich are friends and there is a lot of mutual respect," Paul communications director Jesse Benton said in an e-mail when asked whether a running-mate spot on the Kucinich ticket would be attractive to Paul.

I have friends and colleagues with different beliefs, but I don't think I could ever be "friends" with a raving pinko commie socialist like Kucinich, or regard him as anything but the enemy . . .

Paul could use Kucinich's UFOs to fight his Zionist Illuminati Overlords.

[Perd Hapley]

I know, I goofed.  The point is that it comes from a Lew Rockwell website, so you're going to draw more talk about Lew Rockwell than anything else. 

[longrifleman]

But if you want a well-reasoned debate, don't start with the comments of people like Lew Rockwell.

I see comments like this fairly often concerning Lew Rockwell. Please explain what you find so objectionable about him? "I disagree with him so he must be a kook" isn't much of an explanation, but that is the substance of the points made so far in this thread.

[Brad Johnson]

But if you want a well-reasoned debate, don't start with the comments of people like Lew Rockwell.

I see comments like this fairly often concerning Lew Rockwell. Please explain what you find so objectionable about him? "I disagree with him so he must be a kook" isn't much of an explanation, but that is the substance of the points made so far in this thread.

Take a few minutes and read through some of his stuff.  It won't take you long to figure out why...

Brad

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

But if you want a well-reasoned debate, don't start with the comments of people like Lew Rockwell.

I see comments like this fairly often concerning Lew Rockwell. Please explain what you find so objectionable about him? "I disagree with him so he must be a kook" isn't much of an explanation, but that is the substance of the points made so far in this thread.

There's nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade. 

Adjectives like "kooky" or "crazy" have clear and well-known meanings.  If those are the most accurate words for describing someone's political beliefs, then use 'em.

I grow weary of all these "you called him a kook and didn't say anything meaningful about his position" complaints.  If I called him a kook, then yeah, actually I did say something meaningful about his beliefs.  I said he was a kook, which has a definite meaning.  You just didn't like that meaning, which isn't my problem.

Trying to debate self-evidently irrational people (or articles, or beliefs) with rational arguments is pointless.  It just doesn't work.  If the man was amenable to reason he wouldn't be sputtering irrationalities in the first place. 

Besides, it wastes all of our time.  Easier to call him a kook and move on to intelligent debate with reasonable people.

[Perd Hapley]

But if you want a well-reasoned debate, don't start with the comments of people like Lew Rockwell.

I see comments like this fairly often concerning Lew Rockwell. Please explain what you find so objectionable about him?

This isn't about whether or not I like him, or whether he is a kook.  I happen to like Ann Coulter, and usually agree with her.  But as I said, I wouldn't introduce a topic of discussion by posting something from her website.  Not if I wanted a real debate on the issues.  As with Rockwell, her image would overshadow anything else. 

"I disagree with him so he must be a kook" isn't much of an explanation, but that is the substance of the points made so far in this thread.

Who said that?  Can you back that up, or is it just slander? 

[Perd Hapley]

There's nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade. 

Adjectives like "kooky" or "crazy" have clear and well-known meanings.  If those are the most accurate words for describing someone's political beliefs, then use 'em.

I grow weary of all these "you called him a kook and didn't say anything meaningful about his position" complaints.  If I called him a kook, then yeah, actually I did say something meaningful about his beliefs.  I said he was a kook, which has a definite meaning.  You just didn't like that meaning, which isn't my problem.

   Well said. 

[longrifleman]

Who said that?  Can you back that up, or is it just slander? 

No intent to slander anyone, just my interpertation of several people's point. From later posts it appears essentially accurate. Kooky is certainally in the eye of the beholder, and you all are entitled to judge anyone as you like.

Of course, I have the same option. I think a good bit of the present mainstream conservative thought is pretty kooky. 

As for reading the site, I do. I agree with probably 80%, so I guess I'm kooky enought to be ignored. I'd still be interested in some specific philosophical or policy points you find so offensive.

[Perd Hapley]

longrifle, I apologize.  I got a bit testy.  I was referring to the "anyone I disagree with is a kook" part.  I don't think anyone is using disagreement as the criterion for kook-dom.  I don't think Manedwolf or HTG would call people kooks, just because of disagreement.  That would be a pretty low way to argue.  But as HTG said, some people are kooks, and sometimes it's OK to say so. 

I wouldn't call Hillary Clinton a kook, she's just a politician with some very wrong policy positions.  But I would call Michael Savage a kook, even though I agree with him on a lot of things.  He's goes on frothing-at-the-mouth diatribes, demanding all the "shyster ACLU lawyers" be put in jail, and such.  Then he takes the credit for all manner of things that he had very little to do with.  So, he's right up there with Howard Dean and Al Gore.  As opposed to people like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.  I don't think they're kooks, just severely wrong. 

As for Lew Rockwell, I don't remember how he earned his kook credentials.  I think he used to call himself a fascist and then a socialist and then some other things.  He tends to be all over the map, with various conflicting conspiracy theories.  And that's pretty kooky.  But then it's been a while since I looked him up, so I could be mis-remembering. 

[LAK]

One of the points I find most interesting is that RP is documented predicting in the 1990's the very problems we're seeing now in Iraq. He's not the only one, of course. In 1994 some guy named Dick Cheney predicted a "quagmire" if the US attempted to occupy Baghdad and topple Saddam.

It's one thing when unforeseen problems arise. But it's another when practically everyone foresaw the problems, and we run headlong into them anyway.

--Len.

All this was as foreseen to many as watching a barefoot child marching off with a stick to a fire ant mound "to kill them".

That our national "leaders" did this out of stupidity or being misguided is letting them off far too easy.

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

http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

[longrifleman]

longrifle, I apologize.

No problem. Sometimes I'm not as tactful asking questions as I could be. I'm just trying to make sure I understand what youall mean. It's very easy to misunderstand other people's shorthand on the intarweb thingy.

But then it's been a while since I looked him up, so I could be mis-remembering.

I've been reading that site for several years and I haven't seen anything but very consistent libertarian/anarcho-capitalist doctrine. Rockwell himself writes very few of the articles on the site. Recently it has turned into all Paul, all the time. From what I know of Rockwell's history I would be surprised if he was ever in the socialist/fascist camp, at least since he left jr high.

[Len Budney]

If I called him a kook, then yeah, actually I did say something meaningful about his beliefs.  I said he was a kook, which has a definite meaning.

Yep. It means that some kook on the Internet says he's a kook. 

[Manedwolf]

longrifle, I apologize.  I got a bit testy.  I was referring to the "anyone I disagree with is a kook" part.  I don't think anyone is using disagreement as the criterion for kook-dom.  I don't think Manedwolf or HTG would call people kooks, just because of disagreement.  That would be a pretty low way to argue.  But as HTG said, some people are kooks, and sometimes it's OK to say so. 

I wouldn't call Hillary Clinton a kook, she's just a politician with some very wrong policy positions.  But I would call Michael Savage a kook, even though I agree with him on a lot of things.  He's goes on frothing-at-the-mouth diatribes, demanding all the "shyster ACLU lawyers" be put in jail, and such.  Then he takes the credit for all manner of things that he had very little to do with.  So, he's right up there with Howard Dean and Al Gore.  As opposed to people like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.  I don't think they're kooks, just severely wrong. 

As for Lew Rockwell, I don't remember how he earned his kook credentials.  I think he used to call himself a fascist and then a socialist and then some other things.  He tends to be all over the map, with various conflicting conspiracy theories.  And that's pretty kooky.  But then it's been a while since I looked him up, so I could be mis-remembering. 

Quite correct. Someone I disagree with is just someone I disagree with. Someone like Hillary is manipulative and power-hungry, and not to be trusted. Someone who claims that the government put a chip in their head is an obvious kook. Someone that constantly contradicts themselves with wild conspiracy theories is, indeed, a kook.

[Tuco]

This isn't about whether or not I like him (lew), or whether he is a kook.  I happen to like Ann Coulter, and usually agree with her.  But as I said, I wouldn't introduce a topic of discussion by posting something from her website.  Not if I wanted a real debate on the issues.  As with Rockwell, her image would overshadow anything else. 

Very impressive divorce of logic and emotion in that statement.  It's not as though you need my praise, Fistful, but that statement was like a breath of fresh air in a post polluted with uh, pollution.

[longrifleman]

This isn't about whether or not I like him, or whether he is a kook.  I happen to like Ann Coulter, and usually agree with her.  But as I said, I wouldn't introduce a topic of discussion by posting something from her website.  Not if I wanted a real debate on the issues

Another point of disagreement. I don't care where an idea comes from. Any idea should stand or fall on it's own merits. Even the crazy guy in the square might have some insight that would benefit all of us.

 One problem with limiting the acceptable source of ideas is that it almost certainally imposes a sort of censorship on what will be debated. If you control the terms of the debate, you have probablly guaranteed the outcome before you start.

[Perd Hapley]

I don't care where an idea comes from. Any idea should stand or fall on it's own merits. Even the crazy guy in the square might have some insight that would benefit all of us.

 One problem with limiting the acceptable source of ideas is that it almost certainally imposes a sort of censorship on what will be debated. If you control the terms of the debate, you have probablly guaranteed the outcome before you start.

I agree.

You miss my point.  I'm not saying that the ideas should be discounted because of the source.  In fact, I'm saying that the original poster should have separated the point of view from the source by simply putting them in his own words.  Or perhaps by introducing the article as something penned by someone else.  This would reduce the bias or emotional baggage with which it might be received. 

In a perfect world, we would all debate the article's salient points in a perfectly dispassionate way, regardless of who said what.  But if you want a good discussion, you have to be realistic about how your audience will react to your presentation. 


And now I must apologize once more.     I said earlier that my personal opinion of Lew Rockwell is unimportant here; we're dealing with the perceptions of a lot of other folks.  And it's a good thing I said that, because I was confusing him with Lyndon LaRouche.     Sorry.  Really sorry.