Wednesday, June 1, 2011

Palin and Trump met

So, Sarah and Donald went to Italian food in New York City Tuesday night.
They decided to go out for dinner even in the media frenzy and they couldn't have picked a brighter restaurant in which to eat, could they?...maybe the restaurant won't deliver to Mr. Donald Trump?!   We've heard that they're very good friends and we've heard that Mr. Trump seems to think he could win if he deigned to run, and that he's still not really out of the race.  And we've heard from Mrs Palin that she's got a "fire in her belly."    He says that they just got together because they're such good friends.

What do YOU think they said that night?
Please see the post about Elmer's Brother's sister below...thanks
z

73 comments:

WomanHonorThyself said...

hmmmmmmmmmm...interesting even eh!

Ducky's here said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Ducky's here said...

They decided to go out for dinner even in the media frenzy

--------------
Huh? More like because of the media frenzy.

Z said...

WHT...very interesting.

Ducky, that's my point. They didn't have to go out in public, did they.

Z said...

by the way, Ducky, you've totally convinced me now you don't bother to read the whole posts.

Ducky's here said...

When you want the publicity you find the paparazzi, z.

You think these two are publicity shy.

Bringing in the sheaves. Bringing in the sheaves.

Jan said...

Hmmm...maybe, they're planning something, or maybe it was just a case of two friends getting together for dinner, and chose the most public place they could think of to keep the mean spirited 'journalists' from writing that they met for an intimate, romantic, interlude.

"Bringing in the sheaves. Bringing in the sheaves."

Huh?

Ducky, what does that old hymn have to do with Trump and Palin having pizza together?

I'd really like to know what you meant by that...enlighten me.

Impertinent said...

Ducky...


"“falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus"

Impertinent said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
beamish said...

Sarah Palin and Donald Trump. Throw in Ron Paul and Lyndon LaRouche and you've got the corner on leftists and populists upset that their party nominated a black man for President.

Ducky's here said...

Jan, ever see the scene in "Never Give a Sucker an Even break".

Palin and Trump are trolling for money. Keeping themselves "relevant". Crowding the real news of the page. You know the gig.

Ducky's here said...

... no, scratch that. It was "Tillie and Gus".

Z said...

Ducky, that's THE POINT. They DO want publicity, they're both publicity HOUNDS. What the heck did I leave out of my post that you don't get it? man.

"They decided to go out for dinner even in the media frenzy and they couldn't have picked a brighter restaurant in which to eat, could they?...maybe the restaurant won't deliver to Mr. Donald Trump?!"

get it? Do YOU think there's a restaurant in the whole world that wouldn't deliver to Trump if he paid for it? gad

Jan said...

No, Ducky, I know nothing of either movie, since I'm not a fan of W.C. Fields..but I did look up both movies to see what they are about.

I see the point you were trying to make, and I had even composed in my mind, a clever response--however, in light of what is happening in Elbro's family..himself, and now his beloved sister, I just don't have the heart to try to be clever, or funny.

Z said...

Spurious Bob....if you come by; do you know how long it takes to download your site and then get a comment to publish? Wasn't sure you know that I think people leave because of it and they shouldn't because your blog is very good stuff. xx

Silverfiddle said...

Beamish: Why lump Ron Paul in with Lyndon Larouche?

For crying out loud, Larouche is a criminal and Paul is a medical doctor and the most honest member of congress. Don't like libertarians? Fine, but don't impugn people's character in your pursuit to smear what you don't like.

Ducky's here said...

z, then why do you think it's worthy of comment? It's just these two running their scam.

This is what they do, this is all they do and they will not stop.

Commenting on them leads me to believe you think ths is unusual.

Joe said...

Ducky: Your comments lead me to believe that you think YOU are unusual.

Chuck said...

I don't know that an alliance between these two is so good

Z said...

Ducky....you crack me up.

Chuck....I'm not sure, either.

beamish said...

For crying out loud, Larouche is a criminal and Paul is a medical doctor and the most honest member of congress. Don't like libertarians? Fine, but don't impugn people's character in your pursuit to smear what you don't like.

Uh, no.

I am a libertarian. Ron Paul is... not.

Silverfiddle said...

Beamish: OK. I see where you're coming from.

I won't get in an argument with you over libertarianism, but I still ask you why you lumped in a good man, Ron Paul, with Larouche?

FairWitness said...

Good morning Z, I would imagine they talked about the same things they talk about to the media. I'm not surprised at all that they are friendly.

Bd said...

PLAIN VISITS THE 'STATUTE' OF LIBERTY
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/06/01/233755/sarah-palin-immigration-dream-act/
Shameless carpetbagger.

beamish said...

I won't get in an argument with you over libertarianism, but I still ask you why you lumped in a good man, Ron Paul, with Larouche?

Well, first, I wouldn't call Ron Paul a "good man."

Ron Paul sickened me back in 1988 when I was a member of the Libertarian Party proper and he was their Presidential candidate. I was young, coming up on the first election I'd be old enough to vote in and wanted an alternative to GHW Bush and whatever goofball the Democrats settled on (Dukakis). I lack the prerequisite imbecility needed to willing vote for a Democrat, ever, and I just didn't care too much for Bush the Elder's post-Reagan vision. Reagan was the sweet spot of fusionism - blending libertarianism with conservatism. Ron Paul at the time seemed the logical successor. But then I got to know Ron Paul more. It was around that time his newsletters were merely Lew Rockwell's racist, anti-Semitic ghost-written screeds.

I didn't know Ron Paul didn't actually write his newsletters then - but so what, they went out in his name, from his office.

20 years later we're asked to believe that Ron Paul didn't realize racist, anti-Semitic trash was being produced by his staff then.

Yeah, a candidate unaware of what his staff is sending his constituents is much more Presidential than an candidate sending out ghost-written racism and anti-Semitism with his name on it.

Ron Paul blew his chances of gaining my support in 1988, and has done nothing but reaffirm my commitment to never see him in the White House since. He panders to 9/11 conspiracy theorists, enthusiatically takes campaign donations from white supremacist / neo-Nazi groups, and his foreign policy pronouncements amount to little more than suggesting we cater to what al Qaeda wants America to do.

In short, no reasonable, honest, respectful discussion of Ron Paul can commence without acknowledging the fact that he's a blithering idiot. Discussing his monetary policies seriously is just overkill in highlighting his idiocy.

I "lump him in" with LaRouche on the overlapping grounds of each man's racist, anti-Semitic tin foil hat wearing supporters.

The only real, tangible difference between Paul and LaRouche is Paul is a scumbag that's never seen jail time. LaRouche was at least smart enough to get away with a credit card fraud scam through four presidential election cycles before getting shut down. Ron Paul's Iranian "money bombs" will eventually do him in, I suspect.

beamish said...

Shameless carpetbagger

Has the term "carpetbagger" grown a new meaning?

Originally it was a derogatory term for Northerners who went South after the Civil War to fraudulently (or at least unethically) profit from Reconstruction loans.

Color me curious, Bd. Now, don't slander me with the ridiculous assertion that I believe you're capable of intellectual production.

I just want to see how the sausage was made to bring you to link a post-Civil War epithet to a discussion of an immigration bill that was soundly defeated by opposition from both Repulbicans and Democrats.

Call it train wreck analysis, if you will.

Z said...

Beamish, I think what upsets leftwingers more is that Palin is visiting the sites Americans should be made aware of again, especially American children.

Shining a light on America's great locations is to liberals like a cross to vampires.

Pris said...

It's clear why they did what they did. Each of these people want's to stay in the public eye, and want's what we're all doing here,
and that's speculating on what they each will decide to do.

If either of them announces he/she is running, it'll be done as an end run around the GOP establishment. Outside the beltway good old boy network.

Right now, it's a "keep 'em guessing" game. Trump worries me because he's threatened to run as an independent.

Sarah makes it clear she's a Republican, so she's keeping her options open but I don't think she'd run as an independent.

Palin is a politician, Trump is not. However if you can name a possible candidate who is not a publicity hound, I'd like to know who that is.

This is just a clever way to stay in the game, while not officially being in the game. It'll all come out in the wash, it's just a matter of when.

Meanwhile the media is going nuts, because these two won't get in line the old tried and true way. It's hard to corner them and play gotcha!

I kind've like that!

Z said...

Pris, that's the part I like, too!

beamish said...

Beamish, I think what upsets leftwingers more is that Palin is visiting the sites Americans should be made aware of again, especially American children.

I think Palin serves as a lightning rod for left-wing ire because she consumes so much of the left's inherently and biologically limited attention span.

The left's defense of their amateur President will always default to "at least he can spell potato."

Z said...

"The left's defense of their amateur President will always default to "at least he can spell potato."

in 234987249387 ways a day, you're right, Beamish.

beamish said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
beamish said...

I wish I wasn't right. I wish I could dumb down and get along with people neon obviously less intelligent than me. It gets lonely wondering what a lot of people would do if there were no TV to command them.

It's mainly disturbing to me how many non-leftists share the left's delusion that leftists are not all blithering idiots. Isn't it obvious that they are? Eugenics? Lysenkoism? Global warming? Hello? If intellect were horsepower, the left, in its entirety working together, couldn't muster enough together to have a bowel movement. Why aren't we marginalizing these twits from jump?

Take Ducky or Bd for examples. You think you'll ever get anywhere productively with them as long as they're not honest enough to admit that they're clueless?

Silverfiddle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Silverfiddle said...

Beamish: Thanks for the response. I understand, but other than 3 degrees of separation, I've seen no evidence that Paul is a racist or an anti-Semite. Also, I think he is right on about what the government has allowed the fed to do to our money. It is legalized theft.

Are you really a libertarian? You sound pretty closed-minded and doctrinaire. Leftists love the racist smear...

Anyway, some evidence of Ron Paul uttering or doing anything racist or anti-Semitic would be helpful.

beamish said...

Beamish: Thanks for the response. I understand, but other than 3 degrees of separation, I've seen no evidence that Paul is a racist or an anti-Semite.

I wouldn't put that many degrees of seperation in there. With three degrees of separation between Ron Paul and racists and anti-Semites, you're four degrees too many. Ron Paul doesn't distinguish himself from his rabid supporters in the cornpone fever swamps of Neo-Nazi Area 51 UFO enthusiasts and anti-Semitic international banker New World Order conspiracy theories, why should I?

He has nothing but lame excuses about why racist and anti-Semitic screeds went out in his name in his official newsletters, and does nothing to repudiate or reject the neo-Nazi / anti-Semitic following he has. Go to neo-Nazi white supremacist hate sites and follow the comment threads. Go to Ron Paul websites and follow the comment threads. It's the same crowd. Neo-Nazi websites raise money for Ron Paul. He does not reject that money.

You've got to ask yourself, now if not eventually, what it is that 9/11 conspiracy theorists, neo-Nazi white supremacists, and anti-Semites see in Ron Paul.

Its easy to discover what they see by listening to the man. They see a fellow leftist.

Also, I think he is right on about what the government has allowed the fed to do to our money. It is legalized theft.

But then he gets it dead wrong by proposing a return to the gold standard, as if our economic deterioration wasn't fast enough.

Ron Paul's ties and allegiance and obvious pandering to the fringe left anti-globalizationist, neo-Nazi, 9/11 conspiracy theory peddling, all-we-are-saying-is-give-al-Qaeda-a-chance crowd make make him a hit with the Tea Party, but actual conservatives and actual libertarians should step over and around that piece of dog shit.

Silverfiddle said...

Beamish: Great rhetoric, but I asked for facts and evidence that he is a racist and anti-Semite.

Lots of klansmen voted for Reagan, so by your reasoning, Reagan was a racist.

What exactly about Ron Paul is leftist? How do you define leftist?

Again, are you sure you're a libertarian? You don't sound like one, especially when you call Reagan the "sweet spot." And your defense of government's silent tax via currency manipulation puts you squarely in the Bush-Obama camp.

I guess you're not a Rothbard fan...

Anyway, I'd appreciate some proof to back your unfounded assertions.

beamish said...

Are you really a libertarian? You sound pretty closed-minded and doctrinaire. Leftists love the racist smear...

What's there to be open minded about? Ron Paul in Ron Paul's own words advocates an American retreat from the world stage. He as much blames the 9/11 attacks on American foriegn policy and he justifies the 9/11 attacks BECAUSE of American foreign policy. "We should listen to bin Laden..." Really? And if we should diagree, what?

Ron Paul would have an Osama bin Laden figure in the world telling him how to run American foreign policy.

Anyway, some evidence of Ron Paul uttering or doing anything racist or anti-Semitic would be helpful.

You can't be serious.

Start here

Then here

There is no doubt Ron Paul endorsed or at least promoted the racist, anti-Semitic views of his former staffer Lew Rockwell in his own name in his own newsletters. I received that newsletter in the mail back in the late 1980s, and ended my association with the LP over it.

There is no doubt Ron Paul is the favorite candidate of the vocal neo-Nazi crowd.

I don't smear Ron Paul. Dog shit smears itself.

beamish said...

I guess you're not a Rothbard fan...

You're right. I don't believe Wal-Mart should have its own military.

Silverfiddle said...

Beamish: You've pointed me to more speculation, no proof. You're chasing your tail.

Lifson himself concludes that there may be smoke, but he can't connect it to a white supremacist fire...

It's in a follow up at the end. You should check your canned links for updates before passing them on.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/12/neonazi_complains_about_ron_pa.html

I see the lefty anti-Christian Little Green Footballs figures into your thinking. That is telling.

Ducky's here said...

Sarah was at the Cafe Vittoria today after her visit to the Old North Church.

She was waxing poetic about seeing the sights and how great it was to be at the spot where Paul Revere rang the church bells to warn everyone where the British were attacking. The woman's American history is impeccable.

I'm sorry we couldn't sit down for an espresso and chocolate cannoli, the woman is just so insightful.

beamish said...

I see the lefty anti-Christian Little Green Footballs figures into your thinking. That is telling.

But what it tells is that you'd much rather put me or a cited website within an article on trial under trial and scrutiny than address the reasons why Ron Paul panders to 9/11 conspiracy theorists, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and anti-Semites and why in turn they enthusiastically support him. I don't need to defend myself, and as long as the hard-left Little Green Footballs website is balls-on accurate at least about Ron Paul's association with scum, I don't need to defend LGF either. On any other day, I'd be taking LGF to task for accusing Ron Paul of being a libertarian or a conservative as a means to smear the right. That is, if LGF wasn't a left-wing echo chamber, an observation that got me banned there.

That Ron Paul published racist screeds in his newsletters, pontificates that American foreign policy causes Islamic terrorism (rather than say, I don't know, maybe Islamic theology?), and willingly associates with and accepts money from white nationalist and supremacist groups actively promoting him is not a "smear," it's the undisputable, plain-as-day truth.

Nothing annoys me more than a so-called "libertarian" utterly unfamiliar with logic and reality.


Ron Paul is no libertarian. His supporters are no where near intelligent enough to be libertarians.

Silverfiddle said...

I did not put your sources on trial. I read them, and they documented some Neo-nazi infatuation with Ron Paul. They failed to connect Paul to neo-Nazis however. A man who admires logic should be able to see the distinction.

Will you be bringing up "dog whistles" next? Lefties usually employ that one right after the unfounded closet racist charges.

You still haven't told us how Ron Paul panders to such racist groups.

And I guess the Reagan-klan comment went over your head.

Anyway, thanks for the laugh. You're the first Little Green Footballs-Lyndon Larouche-Libertarian I've ever met.

It takes all kinds I guess...

beamish said...

I did not put your sources on trial. I read them, and they documented some Neo-nazi infatuation with Ron Paul. They failed to connect Paul to neo-Nazis however. A man who admires logic should be able to see the distinction.

And so, you're going to show us the "distinction" - the effort Ron Paul takes to not spend the money he raises from neo-Nazi websites and 9/11 conspiracy theory gatherings? The repudiation he gives to invitations to be a guest on Holocaust denier Alex Jones radio show?

I didn't think so.

Will you be bringing up "dog whistles" next? Lefties usually employ that one right after the unfounded closet racist charges.

Will your obvious lack of intellectual capacity continue to motivate you to try to gloss over Ron Paul's very much public and out-of-the-closet racist views published by his own creditted articles and the neo-Nazi / anti-Semitic ideologies behind the support he enjoys from your fellow retards?

You still haven't told us how Ron Paul panders to such racist groups.

You're the Ron Paul supporter. You tell us. Why does Ron Paul accept donations from racists and anti-Semites? Why does Ron Paul accept support from people who believe 9/11 was an "inside job?" Why does Ron Paul tour the Holocaust denier talk radio circuit? Why do Ron Paul fundraising websites instruct non-Americans internationally in how to subvert campaign finance laws to donate to his campaign? Why is there no real way to tell the difference between a Ron Paul website message forum's contents and those of anti-Semitic, neo-Nazi, white supremacist website message fora?

It's not malicious smearing that has Ron Paul going to the wells of anti-Semitism, Holocaust denial, 9/11 conspiracy theorists, and racists for support and financing. He's doing that all by his own damned blithering idiot self.

And I guess the Reagan-klan comment went over your head.

Actually, I didn't crawl under a rock with you so it could.

Anyway, thanks for the laugh. You're the first Little Green Footballs-Lyndon Larouche-Libertarian I've ever met.

Unfortunately, you're not the first twit Ron Paul fanatic I've obliterated.

beamish said...

I will defend Ron Paul against charges of being gay, however.

The charge that he's dumber than a competitive paint chip eater sticks, though.

Silverfiddle said...

You're arguing in circles again, which is expected of someone who lacks facts to back their assertions.

If you could provide something he said that was racist or Holocaust denying you might have a case, but you cannot, so you don't.

The District of Criminals is robbing this country blind, and you focus in on Ron Paul and 30 year old pamphlets, some of which contain words that match not at all his actual actions over the years.

A politician talks to anyone who will listen and takes money from nasty people? Oh No! That never happens in America! You have such tender sensibilities.

"Obliterated?" You have a strange way with words.

I think a better word is self-immolation, and it applies to you.

But I did get a good laugh from your ramblings. Thanks again for the entertainment. You're a one man Abbot and Costello.

Silverfiddle said...

Yeah, they let anyone through medical school...

I notice you like to call everyone you don't agree with dumb. Must be a psychological compensation thing...

I like your beer, btw

beamish said...

You're arguing in circles again, which is expected of someone who lacks facts to back their assertions.

I fulfilled what you asked of me. You wanted evidence that Ron Paul panders to and welcomes the support of the racist and anti-Semitic lunatic fringe. The record speaks for itself.

If you could provide something he said that was racist or Holocaust denying you might have a case, but you cannot, so you don't.

My case is that Ron Paul has published racist views in several newsletters and articles for racist websites, makes regular appearances before the 9/11 conspiracy theorists and Holocaust denial crowds and vanity talk shows, has collected campaign money from self-identifying racist and anti-Semitic websites (and continues to do so), and is apparently not only content with these unseemly associations but also actively cultivates them.

Left for you, if not Ron Paul, is the explaining of why he'd tell a group of 9/11 troofers that he'd investigate their bizarre theories or relish his appearances on Alex Jones' Holocaust denial radio show. Or why we should shape American policy to mollify extremists who blow up American embassies or hijack planes to run them into office buildings.

The District of Criminals is robbing this country blind, and you focus in on Ron Paul and 30 year old pamphlets, some of which contain words that match not at all his actual actions over the years.

I only provided the contextual fact that Ron Paul's pandering to racists and anti-Semites goes back 30+ years. Then he had the forum and following of spelling and grammatical error-laden screeds from toothless retards and their vanity publishers and newsletters (complete with furtive anti-Semitic conspiracy theories that da man was keeping their samizdat down) Now he has that corner of the Internet. What's changed? Gigi Rodriguez is a champion of liberty and Liu Xiaobo is not? Ron Paul's alleged reputation for consistency and intellectual fervor is largely insubstantiable.

A politician talks to anyone who will listen and takes money from nasty people? Oh No! That never happens in America! You have such tender sensibilities.

I excoriate Obama for his ties to despicable people and ideologies as well. It doesn't much surprise me that the Democratic Party retains its Old Left / KKK and New Left / Weather Underground wings. I just wish Ron Paul would join a party that caters to his particular anti-Semitic, racist fetishes. He's got the Old Left / KKK half of the Democratic Party cinched up in his Tea Party fantasy, why not take it to the next level? He could announce a third party run, find someone sufficiently communist to be a running mate (Dennis Kucinich could be his Lenora Fulani) and we'll just see how many national socialists there actually are in America.

But I'm curious. What other candidates do neo-Nazi organizations shill for in American politics?

Yeah, they let anyone through medical school...

Jack Kevorkian, Joseph Mengele....

I notice you like to call everyone you don't agree with dumb. Must be a psychological compensation thing...

Actually, I'd find our converstaion a lot more honest and respectful if you'd just admit you're a blithering idiot.

beamish said...

I like your beer, btw

Beamish Stout has consistency.

Ron Paul however, does not.

beamish said...

Bonus! Ron Paul's opportunistic Israel-bashing linked above as well.

Yeah, he's not after the neo-Nazi vote at all.

We've moved beyond obliteration to stomping on horse carcasses now.

Silverfiddle said...

Criticism of Israel does not constitute anti-Semitism.

Your arguments are rife with logical fallacy and false equivalency.

You've provided some scant, 2nd and 3rd party information and speculation, and I thank you for that. I believe in looking seriously at the candidates and not just ingesting campaign propaganda.

beamish said...

Criticism of Israel does not constitute anti-Semitism.

But criticism of Israel for defending itself and maintaining its national security DOES CONSTITUTE ANTI-SEMITISM.

Criticism of Israel for their military response to being bombarded by thousands of artillery rockets by Hamas, a terrorist organization dedicated to the destruction of all Jews DOES CONSTITUTE ANTI-SEMITISM.

Criticism of Israel for their blockade and interception of Iranian bombs to be delivered to a terrorist group dedicated to the destruction of Israel and all Jews DOES CONSTITITUTE ANTI-SEMITISM.

Your arguments are rife with logical fallacy and false equivalency.

Then I'm sure you'll obligingly stop all the name-calling and grandstanding and get around to pointing out my alleged fallacies sometime this century. As of late, your arguments are rife with the mendacities and duplicities ubiquitously offered by the hordes of people of near-immeasurably low intelligence and utterly non-existent reasoning skills that Ron Paul draws upon for support.

For God's sake man, make yourself stand out from the pack.

You've provided some scant, 2nd and 3rd party information and speculation, and I thank you for that. I believe in looking seriously at the candidates and not just ingesting campaign propaganda.

Ron Paul in Ron Paul's own words is 2nd and 3rd party information?

Get the fuck outr of here, poseur.

Silverfiddle said...

Feeling a little squeamish, Beamish?

Name calling? Look at your own comments. Fleck-spittle Ad hominem is all you got.

People can be for international neutrality for various reasons. Anti-Semitism is not the only reason for not fully supporting Israel. That is just one of your logical fallacies. If you don't understand that, then I can't help you further.

What part of George Washington's warning against foreign entanglement don't you understand?

Z said...

Beamish...I hope you mean "get out of here" to Paul and not my commenter, SilverFiddle.

Man, it looks like it's going to be a very ugly 1 1/2 before the election; and for what? As if anybody could overtake Obama with the way the media's in his pocket and the way they annihilate or misrepresent anything any Republican says or does? fat chance

beamish said...

Feeling a little squeamish, Beamish?

I am disconcerted by people who handwave away video of Ron Paul himself speaking into a camera as "3rd party information" in defense of his readily apparent racism and anti-Semitism.

Name calling? Look at your own comments. Fleck-spittle Ad hominem is all you got.

Words actually have meanings. It is not an ad hominem attack upon you in observing your obviously low intelligence in action.

People can be for international neutrality for various reasons.

But Ron Paul is not for international neutrality. Does a internationally neutral concern want to meddle in Romanian adoption laws? Does an internationally neutral concern champion Iranian deployment of Hezbollah and arming of Hamas against Israel's right to self-defense?

Does an internationally neutral concern recommend issuing letters of marques and reprisal to conduct a non-interventionist foreign policy?

C'mon, Silverfiddle, think. Ron Paul is an idiot.

Anti-Semitism is not the only reason for not fully supporting Israel.

Could you please list a reason for not fully supporting Israel's right to defend itself from nations and organizations that have a publicly stated goal of wiping the Jewish state off the map that isn't anti-Semitic?

That is just one of your logical fallacies. If you don't understand that, then I can't help you further.

I understand that you have no idea what logic is. You made that apparent when you rose to Ron Paul's defense.

What part of George Washington's warning against foreign entanglement don't you understand?

My Cherokee ancestry, I guess.

Or maybe it's in the light of the Barbary Wars and other necessary defenses of America's international interests throughout history that causes me not to mutate and elevate Washington's "warning" against getting involved in ongoing European conflicts into a Holy Command.

beamish said...

Beamish...I hope you mean "get out of here" to Paul and not my commenter, SilverFiddle.

It was a call for Fiddle to turn up his brightness knob.

beamish said...

Ever read Murray Rothbard's glowing eulogy of Che Guevara?

Z said...

Beamish, others are 'bright', they just don't agree with you!!
:-)

beamish said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
beamish said...

Sorry Z.

I have never inaccurately labeled stupidity.

Anyone who would dismiss first hand straight from the horse's mouth video of Ron Paul as "2nd or 3rd party" hearsay evidence is not outpacing potato salad on the intellect scale.

Silverfiddle said...

No worries, Z. I've run into more than one blowhard on the innerwebz. They like to call everyone stupid when they can't back their assertions. I guess it makes them feel better or it compensates for some shortfall or deficiency.

I have read much Rothbard, but not that one. It doesn't surprise me though, and it doesn't surprise me that it scandalizes you.

You sound like a very strange strain of libertarian. You are a dogmatic person who would demonize those who think differently from you.

You tell me what Ron Paul said that was racist. I guess I have a tin ear.

I guess if you are arguing from a preponderance of evidence, then I'll grant that you are not completely unhinged, but to categorically say the man is a racist and hates Jews is just not supported by the evidence.

Ron Paul is also for pulling troops out of Germany, so is he a German-hater too? Maybe he's just anti-beer and bratwurst!

Z said...

SF, Beamish is a friend...he does go in odd directions, however, from time to time. :-)

beamish said...

No worries, Z. I've run into more than one blowhard on the innerwebz. They like to call everyone stupid when they can't back their assertions. I guess it makes them feel better or it compensates for some shortfall or deficiency.

Or, Occam's razor deployed, there's a more simple explanation for why you keep encountering people who discover that you're an idiot. Quite likely because you mistake original source materials for hearsay and can't decide if someone lacks evidence or has a preponderance of evidence.

I have read much Rothbard, but not that one. It doesn't surprise me though, and it doesn't surprise me that it scandalizes you.

Rothbard wrote of Che Guevara that "his enemy was our enemy." Now, I'm not sure how the women and children slaughtered by Che Guevara for Fidel Castro pissed off "anarcho-libertarians" like Rothbard enough to bring them to common cause with totalitarian murderers, but that's how weird it is over there in Ron Paul's corner of the left-wing.

You tell me what Ron Paul said that was racist. I guess I have a tin ear.

"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." - Ron Paul, 1992

Has Ron Paul ever been robbed by a black teenaged male? Robbed by a white, a Pacific Islander, an Asian, a Hispanic, and a native American to compare their speeds against? Do other races walk or crawl or skip or cartwheel away from the scene of a crime? What's the deal?

"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." - Ron Paul, 1992

Is the criminal justice sytem in DC more efficient at arresting and imprisoning Asians? How does Ron Paul make his "safe assumption" that nearly every black male in Washington DC is a criminal?

I guess if you are arguing from a preponderance of evidence, then I'll grant that you are not completely unhinged, but to categorically say the man is a racist and hates Jews is just not supported by the evidence.

Again, I'll ask...

Could you please list a reason for not fully supporting Israel's right to defend itself from nations and organizations that have a publicly stated goal of wiping the Jewish state off the map that isn't anti-Semitic?

Ron Paul mockingly minimized the terrorist group Hamas' thousands of rocket attacks on Israel (targeting schools, hospitals, and civilian residential areas - a WAR CRIME) as "a few rockets" and criticized Israel for its retaliation in national defense. Not only does Ron Paul not condemn Hamas, at all, he takes Israel to task for taking Hamas seriously as a threat to their citizens.

Ron Paul is also for pulling troops out of Germany, so is he a German-hater too? Maybe he's just anti-beer and bratwurst!

Is this the closest you'll tread to admitting you're an imbecile?

beamish said...

"We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." - Ron Paul, 1992

It's probably not a coincidence that this psuedo-constitutionalist pseudo-libertarian racist piece of dog shit wants to do away with the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment and create race-based sentencing guidelines.

What exactly is libertarian about this jackwagon again?

Silverfiddle said...

Those statements are all you got? Did you get them from msnbc? They could be considered racially insensitive, I'll give you that. But against some pamphlets and a few statements you cite, there is a whole life.

If the man were a racist, we'd have incidents of discrimination, people from back in college or his medical practice coming forward with stories...

And on Israel and Hamas, I do not agree with him. Indeed my point was not to defend his policies, but to investigate your unfounded assertion that he is anti-Semitic. You've utterly failed to prove it.

For the last time, I will type slowly and explain that there are many motives for taking such a stand. It does not prove he is anti Semitic.

How is he libertarian?
Smaller government, minimizing foreign entanglements and putting us back on firm constitutional footing are three libertarian trait I can think of off the top of my head.

No problems, Z! This is what makes Blogistan a zesty and exciting place. The irony here is that Beamish and I probably agree on quite a lot.

I'll let you have the last word, Beamish, we've gone in circles and the buzzards are picking the horse's carcass.

Have a happy weekend!

Z said...

"imbecile?"
I really don't want that here.

beamish said...

Those statements are all you got? Did you get them from msnbc? They could be considered racially insensitive, I'll give you that. But against some pamphlets and a few statements you cite, there is a whole life.

No, those statements are not "all I've got." And if you weren't posing yourself as a willfully ignorant IMBECILIC dipshit you'd acknowledge that Ron Paul's racist statements came from Ron Paul, not "MSNBC." I offer relevant examples from Ron Paul's 30+ years of making racist comments and offering up racist and anti-Semitic policy sentiments. I'm not going to write his annotated biography. Your computer connects to the same Internet mine does.

If the man were a racist, we'd have incidents of discrimination, people from back in college or his medical practice coming forward with stories...

You've an odd definition of "racism" then, if it can't include someone who clearly believes black people are naturally gifted criminals and thus the law should be applied differently to them.

And on Israel and Hamas, I do not agree with him. Indeed my point was not to defend his policies, but to investigate your unfounded assertion that he is anti-Semitic. You've utterly failed to prove it.

The only utter failure here is your weaseling gymnastics to avoid admitting that you do not agree with Ron Paul's anti-Semitic policies because they are anti-Semitic.

For the last time, I will type slowly and explain that there are many motives for taking such a stand. It does not prove he is anti Semitic.

Yet in the light of these alleged "many reasons" and "many motives" for someone to take Ron Paul's consistently pro-Palestinian terrorism / anti-Israeli national security positions and my specifically asking you TWICE, you can't even list one.

I'd still like for you to explain that, and I'd like for your explanation to cover how someone who walks and talks like a racist and an anti-Semite (given Ron Paul's 30+ year history of racist statements, pandering to white supremacists and Holocaust deniers, and cultivating fundraising ties from them) isn't a racist and an anti-Semite.

How is he libertarian?
Smaller government, minimizing foreign entanglements and putting us back on firm constitutional footing are three libertarian trait I can think of off the top of my head.


Above empty platitudes and generic sentiments, could you name any specific legislative efforts Ron Paul has made in his 20 years as a US Congressman to reduce the size of government, minimize foreign entanglements, and reaffirm the US Constititution that outshine his career of having his hand deep in the till for billions in pork project spending, signing on to bills aimed at meddling in foreign affairs, and advocating different standards of jurisprudence for black people?

I'm sure you'll come back with a generic "well, all politicians are liars and hypocrites," but can you think of any other politicians who claim to be "conservative" and "libertarian" yet have a career record proving the precise, exact opposite?


Dealing in specifics, Ron Paul is precisely the opposite of what he claims to be. He isn't even right-wing.

beamish said...

"imbecile?"
I really don't want that here.


When imbeciles participate here, they're going to inevitably be identified as such.

beamish said...

Three's a charm, Silverfiddle...

Could you please list a reason for not fully supporting Israel's right to defend itself from nations and organizations that have a publicly stated goal of wiping the Jewish state off the map that isn't anti-Semitic?

Z said...

not here, they won't, Beamish.

beamish said...

I have absolutely no plans to stop identifying imbecility when confronted by imbeciles, Z. Far leftists who think that they're right-wing fit that criteria.

If my principled stance to not pretend idiocy isn't idiocy is no longer welcome here, all you've got to do is ask me to not post here and I'll be gone.

Z said...

stop the name calling.

beamish said...

I haven't called any names. I've merely identified idiocy as such.