Guest guest Posted January 12, 2008 Report Share Posted January 12, 2008 http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/16194 http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=74978161-f730-43a2-91c3-de262573a1 29 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2008 Report Share Posted January 12, 2008 On 1/12/08, Ancient Eyeball Recipe <implode7@...> wrote: > http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/16194 That's hilarious. CNN must be in on this conspiracy theory too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kjsy2Z3kdI Is CNN a racist right-wing milita supporter? Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2008 Report Share Posted January 12, 2008 > Oh, I trust CNN implicitly. > > >> > On 1/12/08, Ancient Eyeball Recipe <implode7@... >> > <mailto:implode7%40comcast.net> > wrote: >>> >> http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/16194 >> > >> > That's hilarious. CNN must be in on this conspiracy theory too: >> > >> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kjsy2Z3kdI >> > >> > Is CNN a racist right-wing milita supporter? >> > >> > Chris >> > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2008 Report Share Posted January 12, 2008 > >>> >> http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/16194 > >> > That's hilarious. CNN must be in on this conspiracy theory too: > >> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kjsy2Z3kdI > >> > Is CNN a racist right-wing milita supporter? > > Oh, I trust CNN implicitly. The point is that the author lumps Ron in with anti-semitic and ultra-right-wing militia groups and conspiracy theorists because he fears the Council of Foreign Relations and other groups are producing a North American Union, whereas CNN has done stories on the same subject. So the issue is not whether you trust CNN on everything, but whether you would group CNN in with right-wing conspiracy theorizing militias. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 12, 2008 Report Share Posted January 12, 2008 > seems to me that you¹re, as usual, picking and choosing what you want to look > at ....the author cites a lot more than just these political theories the > points that I find more salient are the ones about the decades long history of > publications printing some pretty vile stuff in his name, and his rather lame > and belated excuses. As for Lou Dobbs I know very little about this talking > heads, and don¹t really feel the need to research it. Does Duke praise > CNN? I know that Prison Planet¹s is a way out conspiracy nut, and > he and Ron seem to be pretty tight. > > >> > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/16194 >> > >>>>>> >>>>> That's hilarious. CNN must be in on this conspiracy theory too: >> > >>>>>> >>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kjsy2Z3kdI >> > >>>>>> >>>>> Is CNN a racist right-wing milita supporter? >> > >>>> >>> Oh, I trust CNN implicitly. >> > >> > The point is that the author lumps Ron in with anti-semitic and >> > ultra-right-wing militia groups and conspiracy theorists because he >> > fears the Council of Foreign Relations and other groups are producing >> > a North American Union, whereas CNN has done stories on the same >> > subject. So the issue is not whether you trust CNN on everything, but >> > whether you would group CNN in with right-wing conspiracy theorizing >> > militias. >> > >> > Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2008 Report Share Posted January 13, 2008 Q: You said this. " Abolish the FBI and the CIA and dismantle every other agency except the Justice and Defense Departments. " And then you went on: " If elected president, says he would abolish public schools, welfare, Social Security and farm subsidies. " A: OK, you may have picked that up 20 or 30 years ago, it's not part of my platform. As a matter of fact, I'm the only one that really has an interim program. Technically, a lot of those functions aren't constitutional. But the point is I'm not against the FBI investigation in doing a proper role, but I'm against the FBI spying on people like Luther King. I'm against the CIA fighting secret wars and overthrowing governments. Q: Would you abolish them? A: I would not abolish all their functions. But let's go with the CIA. They're involved in torture. I would abolish that, yes. But I wouldn't abolish their requirement to accumulate intelligence for national defense purposes. That's quite different. Suze " Think occasionally of the suffering of which you spare yourself the sight. " ~Albert Schweitzer > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2008 Report Share Posted January 13, 2008 > I¹m not sure of t he relevance. The quotes you mention below are not > particularly controversial, and I¹d bet that there are lots of people in > Congress who would agree with them. > > >> > >> > Q: You said this. " Abolish the FBI and the CIA and dismantle every other >> > agency except the Justice and Defense Departments. " And then you went on: >> > " If elected president, says he would abolish public schools, welfare, >> > Social Security and farm subsidies. " >> > >> > A: OK, you may have picked that up 20 or 30 years ago, it's not part of my >> > platform. As a matter of fact, I'm the only one that really has an interim >> > program. Technically, a lot of those functions aren't constitutional. But >> > the point is I'm not against the FBI investigation in doing a proper role, >> > but I'm against the FBI spying on people like Luther King. I'm >> > against the CIA fighting secret wars and overthrowing governments. >> > >> > Q: Would you abolish them? >> > >> > A: I would not abolish all their functions. But let's go with the CIA. >> > They're involved in torture. I would abolish that, yes. But I wouldn't >> > abolish their requirement to accumulate intelligence for national defense >> > purposes. That's quite different. >> > >> > Suze >> > >> > " Think occasionally of the suffering of which you spare yourself the >> sight. " >> > ~Albert Schweitzer >> > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2008 Report Share Posted January 13, 2008 On 1/12/08, Ancient Eyeball Recipe <implode7@...> wrote: > seems to me that you¹re, as usual, picking and choosing what you want to look > at ....the author cites a lot more than just these political theories  > the points that I find more salient are the ones about the decades long > history of publications printing some pretty vile stuff in his name, and his rather > lame and belated excuses. As for Lou Dobbs  I know very little about this > talking heads, and don¹t really feel the need to research it. Does Duke > praise CNN? I know that Prison Planet¹s is a way out conspiracy nut, > and he and Ron seem to be pretty tight. On a quick factual note, I'm not sure why you think and Ron are " tight. " I have no idea if they are personal friends, but it appears that promotes 9/11 prior knowledge and/or conspiracy theories, which Ron does not. I agree that a lot of what is quoted is pretty bad and some of it is downright idiotic. For example, there was one quote that said that black people are taught to hate white people, but who had ever seen a white person who was brought up to hate black people in such a way? Obviously the KKK and other such groups are a perfect example of white hatred toward black or other races. Others of these quotes are very distasteful but not necessarily racist and a couple of them seem relatively excusable. For example, it is not anti-semitic to oppose the Israeli lobby or racist to call Barbara Jordan a half-educated victimologist. The former seems perfectly excusable and the latter seems in bad taste, tactless and insulting but certainly not racist. The quote regarding Duke is seems to be saying that Duke's victory shows the appeal of a number of posiitve themes of his message, but seems to expressly consider Duke's message sub-optimal, as it states that advantage should be taken of this to package it in a " more consistent message of freedom. " It seems quite obvious to me that there is nothing racist about expressing partial agreement with Duke's platform. Indeed, Murray Rothbard -- who was a close friend of Lew Rockwell who was in turn a close friend of Ron , though I don't know if Ron and Rothbard were friends-- said the same in the following article: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch5.html Since Rothbard was a supporter of the Black Power movement and the Black Panthers, I doubt he was racist. Much of what is written about King in those newsletters is a matter of fact or falsehood, though. Are the accusations about King's character -- which certainly did not originate in that publication -- correct or not? It is not racism to critciize Luther King any more than it is racist to criticize Lincoln. This fellow from the New Republic who published them has completely ridiculous views about what constitutes " racism " and " anti-semitism. " In a TV interview with Tucker Carlson, this guy actually equated secessionism and " neo-conferatism " with racism. In fact, he suggested that to recommend the book _The Real Lincoln_ by DiLorenzo was very close to racism because it consttutes " neo-confederatism. " Now this I find hilarious because I own this book, and I didn't notice anything remotely racist about it. If anything, the author of this book appears to be an obvious anti-racist. But apparently if I were to recommend this book, this would make me a " neo-confederate " and by implication likely to be racist. In any case, some of the stuff is certainly nasty and some just ridiculous, but Ron has been giving public speeches and writing books and articles prolificly for decades. Absolutely nothing he has written or said exhibits any of the racist type of tone expressed in the letters. And the basic style and voice, putting the issue of racism aside for a moment, does not sound anything like Ron at all. You would think if he was indeed a racist that one could find at least one public slip of the tongue over the last 30 or 40 years that would indicate this, but you can't. He had no problems doing interviews with black interviewers in 1988: (he's changed positions on a couple things since then, including the death penalty) And, unlike most other Republicans, he has no problem doing so now: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoF2jpozWSk ============== http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/magazine/22-t.html?ei=5124 & en=22ee37525a9f\ c4f5 & ex=1343016000 & partner=permalink & exprod=permalink & pagewanted=all " We first bonded, " recalls Barney , the Massachusetts Democrat, " because we were both conspicuous nonworshipers at the Temple of the Fed and of the High Priest Greenspan. " [...] " He is one of the easiest people in Congress to work with, because he bases his positions on the merits of issues, " says Barney , who has worked with on efforts to ease the regulation of gambling and medical marijuana. " He is independent but not ornery. " =============== Sure Duke supports him, but the 9/11 truthers support him and he doesn't support them; Leary did a fundraiser for him in the 80s but he never supported LSD; animal rights activists supported him for introducing legislation to deny foreign aid to a country that murdered dogs, but he never supported animal rights. Ron attracts all kinds of people who feel marginalized by the government in any way, and that doesn't mean he supports everything they say. Ron as a basic principle seems to have no interest in distancing himself from people. Even the 9/11 truthers, some of whose theories he considers " bizarre, " -- he had little tolerance for anyone insisting he officially censure them or condemn them, insisting it was sufficient for him to state he had no agreement with them. Maybe that's why he's opposing exposing whoever wrote these things. I think it would help him politically if he'd be more open about it, but I simply don't believe that he's a racist, which is what is important to me. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2008 Report Share Posted January 13, 2008 On 1/13/08, Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote: > ============== > http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/magazine/22-t.html?ei=5124 & en=22ee37525a9f\ c4f5 & ex=1343016000 & partner=permalink & exprod=permalink & pagewanted=all > > " We first bonded, " recalls Barney , the Massachusetts Democrat, > " because we were both conspicuous nonworshipers at the Temple of the Fed and > of the High Priest Greenspan. " [...] " He is one of the easiest people in > Congress to work with, because he bases his positions on the merits of > issues, " says Barney , who has worked with on efforts to ease the > regulation of gambling and medical marijuana. " He is independent but not > ornery. " > =============== Somehow I deleted the context of this quote. I meant to say that if he were really a homophobe, he would probably not have an amicable relationship with Barney . Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2008 Report Share Posted January 13, 2008 >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On 1/12/08, Ancient Eyeball Recipe <implode7@... >> > <mailto:implode7%40comcast.net> > wrote: >>> >> seems to me that you¹re, as usual, picking and choosing what you want to >>> >> look >>> >> at ....the author cites a lot more than just these political theories – >>> >> the points that I find more salient are the ones about the decades long >>> >> history of publications printing some pretty vile stuff in his name, and >>> his >>> >> rather >>> >> lame and belated excuses. As for Lou Dobbs – I know very little about >>> this >>> >> talking heads, and don¹t really feel the need to research it. Does >>> >> Duke >>> >> praise CNN? I know that Prison Planet¹s is a way out >>> conspiracy >>> >> nut, >>> >> and he and Ron seem to be pretty tight. >> > >> > On a quick factual note, I'm not sure why you think and Ron >> > are " tight. " I have no idea if they are personal friends, but it appears >> that >> > promotes 9/11 prior knowledge and/or conspiracy theories, which Ron >> >> > does not. > > Didn’t mean as in friends, but apparently has been on the show many > times, supports him, etc... > > Part of the article, whose truth obviously is difficult to derive, is that > these conspiracists tend to use coded language – at the very least, seems > to appeal to some very unsavory people. As for what truly believes – > well, you’re more trusting than I am. > >> > >> > I agree that a lot of what is quoted is pretty bad and some of it is >> downright >> > idiotic. For example, there was one quote that said that black people are >> > taught to hate white people, but who had ever seen a white person who was >> > brought up to hate black people in such a way? Obviously the KKK and other >> > such groups are a perfect example of white hatred toward black or other >> races. >> > >> > Others of these quotes are very distasteful but not necessarily racist and >> a >> > couple of them seem relatively excusable. > > Well, maybe you have to look at them altogether, rather than as isolated > quotes...even so, the fact that in this huge body of ‘work’, some of the > quotes are not as bad as others is little consolation. > >> > For example, it is not anti-semitic >> > to oppose the Israeli lobby or racist to call Barbara Jordan a >> half-educated >> > victimologist. The former seems perfectly excusable and the latter seems >> in >> > bad taste, tactless and insulting but certainly not racist. The quote >> > regarding Duke is seems to be saying that Duke's victory shows the >> > appeal of a number of posiitve themes of his message, but seems to >> expressly >> > consider Duke's message sub-optimal, as it states that advantage should be >> > taken of this to package it in a " more consistent message of freedom. " It >> > seems quite obvious to me that there is nothing racist about expressing >> > partial agreement with Duke's platform. > > Again – you’re trying very hard to put the best possible spin on invidual > quotes. Not being a Ron fanatic, I feel no need to do so. I find these > extremely troubling, given the fact that they occurred in multiple > publications over a very, very long time span. >> > >> > Indeed, Murray Rothbard -- who was a close friend of Lew Rockwell who was >> in >> > turn a close friend of Ron , though I don't know if Ron and >> Rothbard >> > were friends-- said the same in the following article: >> > >> > http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch5.html >> > >> > Since Rothbard was a supporter of the Black Power movement and the Black >> > Panthers, I doubt he was racist. >> > >> > Much of what is written about King in those newsletters is a matter of fact >> or >> > falsehood, though. Are the accusations about King's character -- which >> > certainly did not originate in that publication -- correct or not? It is >> not >> > racism to critciize Luther King any more than it is racist to >> criticize >> > Lincoln. > > This is getting silly. Context, man, context. And even devoid of context – no, > I don’t like those quotes. MLK was a better man as a public figure than Ron > has any right to even dream about. >> > >> > This fellow from the New Republic who published them has completely >> ridiculous >> > views about what constitutes " racism " and " anti-semitism. " In a TV >> interview >> > with Tucker Carlson, this guy actually equated secessionism and >> > " neo-conferatism " with racism. In fact, he suggested that to recommend >> the >> > book _The Real Lincoln_ by DiLorenzo was very close to racism >> because >> > it consttutes " neo-confederatism. " >> > >> > Now this I find hilarious because I own this book, and I didn't notice >> > anything remotely racist about it. If anything, the author of this book >> > appears to be an obvious anti-racist. But apparently if I were to >> recommend >> > this book, this would make me a " neo-confederate " and by implication likely >> to >> > be racist. > > I didn’t agree with every quote as damining in the context he meant it either > – but they’re just too many others....I don’t, for instance agree that, by > definition, criticisms of Israel are anti-semitic. I make very strong ones > myself. But, in the context, I do imagine that they were....it’s just missing > the ‘smoking gun’. >> > >> > In any case, some of the stuff is certainly nasty and some just ridiculous, >> > but Ron has been giving public speeches and writing books and articles >> > prolificly for decades. Absolutely nothing he has written or said exhibits >> > any of the racist type of tone expressed in the letters. And the basic >> style >> > and voice, putting the issue of racism aside for a moment, does not sound >> > anything like Ron at all. You would think if he was indeed a racist >> that >> > one could find at least one public slip of the tongue over the last 30 or >> 40 >> > years that would indicate this, but you can't. > > Just shows that he’s shrewd. I think that your argument would be a good one > except for the fact that it went on in his name for so long, and he didn’t do > much about it, apparently, until the sh*t hit the fan. >> > >> > He had no problems doing interviews with black interviewers in 1988: >> > >> > >> > >> > (he's changed positions on a couple things since then, including the death >> > penalty) >> > >> > And, unlike most other Republicans, he has no problem doing so now: > > There’s more at stake now. I’m not convinced. Sorry. >> > >> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoF2jpozWSk >> > >> > ============== >> > >> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/magazine/22-t.html?ei=5124 & en=22ee37525a >> > 9fc4f5 & ex=1343016000 & partner=permalink & exprod=permalink & pagewanted=all >> > >> <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/magazine/22-t.html?ei=5124 & amp;en=22ee3 >> > >> 7525a9fc4f5 & amp;ex=1343016000 & amp;partner=permalink & amp;exprod=permalink & amp;p >> > agewanted=all> >> > >> > " We first bonded, " recalls Barney , the Massachusetts Democrat, >> " because >> > we were both conspicuous nonworshipers at the Temple of the Fed and of the >> > High Priest Greenspan. " [...] " He is one of the easiest people in Congress >> to >> > work with, because he bases his positions on the merits of issues, " says >> > Barney , who has worked with on efforts to ease the regulation of >> > gambling and medical marijuana. " He is independent but not ornery. " > > ok – often when people work together, they get chummy. > >> > =============== >> > >> > Sure Duke supports him, but the 9/11 truthers support him and he >> doesn't >> > support them; Leary did a fundraiser for him in the 80s but he >> never >> > supported LSD; animal rights activists supported him for introducing >> > legislation to deny foreign aid to a country that murdered dogs, but he >> never >> > supported animal rights. Ron attracts all kinds of people who feel >> > marginalized by the government in any way, and that doesn't mean he >> supports >> > everything they say. > > Well, of course not, and I’m not so stupid as to believe that. However, as the > article points out, he hasn’t distanced himself from somes of his more > distasteful supporters. > > And, btw, having seen in action, and seeing how he ranted about > Chomsky was part of the ‘new world order’ because Chomsky doesn’t believe in > the 9/11 conspiracy theories, I really have my doubts about what really > believes, and what he has told some of these people ‘behind closed doors’. >> > >> > Ron as a basic principle seems to have no interest in distancing >> himself >> > from people. Even the 9/11 truthers, some of whose theories he considers >> > " bizarre, " -- he had little tolerance for anyone insisting he officially >> > censure them or condemn them, insisting it was sufficient for him to state >> he >> > had no agreement with them. >> > >> > Maybe that's why he's opposing exposing whoever wrote these things. I >> think >> > it would help him politically if he'd be more open about it, but I simply >> > don't believe that he's a racist, which is what is important to me. > > I guess that I suppose I do believe that he is, but he recognizes the > political reality of where he is, and what he’s trying to do. >> > >> > Chris >> > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 13, 2008 Report Share Posted January 13, 2008 > >> > On 1/13/08, Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@... >> > <mailto:chrismasterjohn%40gmail.com> > wrote: >> > >>> >> ============== >>> >> >>> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/magazine/22-t.html?ei=5124 & en=22ee37525 >>> >> a9fc4f5 & ex=1343016000 & partner=permalink & exprod=permalink & pagewanted=all >>> >> >>> <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/magazine/22-t.html?ei=5124 & amp;en=22ee >>> >> >>> 37525a9fc4f5 & amp;ex=1343016000 & amp;partner=permalink & amp;exprod=permalink & amp >>> >> ;pagewanted=all> >>> >> >>> >> " We first bonded, " recalls Barney , the Massachusetts Democrat, >>> >> " because we were both conspicuous nonworshipers at the Temple of the Fed >>> and >>> >> of the High Priest Greenspan. " [...] " He is one of the easiest people in >>> >> Congress to work with, because he bases his positions on the merits of >>> >> issues, " says Barney , who has worked with on efforts to ease >>> the >>> >> regulation of gambling and medical marijuana. " He is independent but not >>> >> ornery. " >>> >> =============== >> > >> > Somehow I deleted the context of this quote. I meant to say that if >> > he were really a homophobe, he would probably not have an amicable >> > relationship with Barney . >> > > > Some of the biggest racists I ever knew hung out with black people all of the > time. >> > Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.