Paul fans Get their wish !

then what's with all the articles about them, lately?


Why Don’t Libertarians Care About Ron Paul’s Bigoted Newsletters?

James Kirchick December 22, 2011

Nearly four years ago, on the eve of the New Hampshire Republican presidential primary, The New Republic published my expose of newsletters published by Texas Congressman Ron Paul. The contents of these newsletters can best be described as appalling. Blacks were referred to as “animals.” Gays were told to go “back” into the “closet.” The “X-Rated Martin Luther King” was a bisexual pedophile who “seduced underage girls and boys.” Three months before the Oklahoma City bombing, Paul praised right-wing, anti-government militia movements as “one of the most encouraging developments in America.” The voluminous record of bigotry and conspiracy theories speaks for itself.

And yet, four years on, Ron Paul’s star is undimmed. Not only do the latest polls place him as the frontrunner in the Iowa Caucuses, but he still enjoys the support of a certain coterie of professional political commentators who, like Paul himself, identify as libertarians. Most prominent among them is Daily Beast blogger Andrew Sullivan, who gave Paul his endorsement in the GOP primary last week, as he did in 2008. But he is not alone: Tim Carney of The Washington Examiner recently bemoaned the fact that “the principled, antiwar, Constitution-obeying, Fed-hating, libertarian Republican from Texas stands firmly outside the bounds of permissible dissent as drawn by either the Republican establishment or the mainstream media,” while Conor Friedersdorf of The Atlantic argues that Paul’s ideas cannot be ignored, and that, for Tea Party Republicans, “A vote against Paul requires either cognitive dissonance—never in short supply in politics—or a fundamental rethinking of the whole theory of politics that so recently drove the Tea Party movement.”

To be sure, these figures, like the broader group of Paul enthusiasts, don’t base their support on the Congressman’s years-long record of supporting racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, and far-right militias. Quite the opposite: Like the candidate himself, they manage to mostly avoid making any mention of his unsavory record at all. It’s an impressive feat of repression, one that says volumes about the type of enthusiasm Paul inspires.

Ultimately, Paul’s following is closely linked with the peculiar attractions of the libertarian creed that he promotes. Libertarianism is an ideology rather than a philosophy of government—its main selling point is not its pragmatic usefulness, but its inviolable consistency. In that way, Paul’s indulgence of bigotry—he says he did not write the newsletters but rather allowed others to do so in his name—isn’t an incidental departure from his libertarianism, but a tidy expression of its priorities: First principles of market economics gain credence over all considerations of social empathy and historical acuity. His fans are guilty of donning the same ideological blinders, giving their support to a political candidate on account of the theories he declaims, rather than the judgment he shows in applying those theories, or the character he has evinced in living them. Voters for Ron Paul are privileging logical consistency at the expense of moral fitness.

But it’s not simply that Paul’s supporters are ignoring the manifest evidence of his moral failings. More fundamentally, their very awareness of such failings is crowded out by the atmosphere of outright fervor that pervades Paul’s candidacy. This is not the fervor of a healthy body politic—this is a less savory type of political devotion, one that escapes the bounds of sober reasoning. Indeed, Paul’s absolutist notion of libertarian rigor has always been coupled with an attraction to fantasies of political apocalypse.

more @ http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/98811/ron-paul-libertarian-bigotry

 

because nobody cares, and there are relentless attempts to create some care.

 

i certainly care


do you think ron paul will be elected president?

 

Its funny how only white people care...

 

you only care in that it serves a political purpose.
You could give a crap less about minorities.

I think he should be.

 

no, what's funny is that you don't know what you're talking about, as usual

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erUTemN7Mas"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erUTemN7Mas[/ame]

wrong again

he won't be

 

You're trolling.

Al Sharpton IS A RACIST!!!

A racist calling someone else a racist...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PD5NqQR7nOc&skipcontrinter=1"]Al Sharpton - YouTube[/ame]

 

the point is that you were completely wrong, again

there are non-whites in the video i posted that act very much like they care

seeing that they went to all the trouble of addressing it on national television

 

Okay, now I know you're trolling...

 

it's a fact, you were wrong

 

such convincing arguments.
Are you on the debate team ?

 

someone said that only whites care about ron paul's racist newsletters, the al sharpton video i posted, easily refuted that

 

let's move outside the realm of political agitators shall we ?

 

LOL. He posted a video of Al Sharpton's newscast talking about the news letters... Al Sharpton...

 

i realize you want to avoid certain aspects of reality, but that's not what i do

 

Got any Louis (Cheep Malcolm X imitation)Farrakhan videos ?