Whoa, whoa, whoa: the Democans and the Republicrats are targets for uncovering duplicity! Why should the Loyal Opposition be allowed to ‘get away’ with blatant false hoods ?????????

Libs [and Greens and (so called) Constitutionists ALL] claim to be the third largest American partisan group! Hmmmmmmmmmmm

(Bruce) Wayne Root claims and does not apologize that the American debt is an unbelievable $100T!

(Doctor) George Phillies STUPIDLY proclaims that the Libs are the only peace party, in a sea of anti war organizations, and does not retract the illogic!

TO PARAPHRASE ANDY: Andy // Dec 28, 2009 at 3:36 pm

“[Bruce Cohen, Wayne Root, George Phillies] , are/is, like many politicians, related to Fonzie [aka the Fonz]. He can’t bring himself to admit that he was ever wr … wrrrrrrrrrrr ….. wrrroooong. But there are some things that you have to do that on.”

Plz wake up Jake Witmer // Do not love the person, love the truth!

“Let’s avoid negatives ”

[a] usually mouthed by mean spirited agents provacatuer

[b] also a cover for incompetance ……….

I support Root for the job, but I also like Phillies. I hope they work together once Root wins. I just had a conversation with Phillies which clarified some of my earlier misgivings about him. Best of luck to all, let’s avoid negative campaigning.

The Party’s purpose is to implement and give voice to the Statement of Principles by uniting voters who want more personal and economic liberty behind the electoral choices that will most move public policy in a libertarian direction. The Party’s ultimate goal is to banish force initiation and fraud from human relationships. The Party does not claim to know how close our society can come to this ideal, but we are united in our conviction that governments must never add to the amount of aggression in the world. Principled libertarians can disagree about how best to reduce aggression or even about precisely what constitutes aggression, but we are united in defending the full rights of each person to his body, labor, peaceful production, and voluntary exchanges. Principled libertarians can disagree about whether every function of government can be performed by the free market, but we are united in opposing government’s growth beyond the protection of the rights of every individual to her life, liberty and property. Principled libertarians can disagree about how best we may each serve the cause of freedom, but we are determined to build a Party that welcomes and unites all those who want more personal and economic liberty. We defenders of freedom are too few, and the enemies of freedom are too many, for us to indulge in seeking heretics in our midst, rather than awakening allies across this freedom-loving land.

This is NOT true. Here is a clip of Ron Paul admitting that he changed his position on the death penalty.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAXAsg4RvdI

Tom, it doesn’t count as evidence for you to merely assume that the words “by Ron Paul” appeared above any of the most egregious newsletter statements.

Kirchik tells us in his TNR article: “Few of the newsletters contain actual bylines. [...] Of course, with few bylines, it is difficult to know whether any particular article was written by Paul himself. Some of the earlier newsletters are signed by him, though the vast majority of the editions I saw contain no bylines at all.”

Was he lying in 1996, or was he lying in 2007? It seems like a simple question, yet I never seem to be able to get a straight answer to it ……”

So you guys do have a taste for what life on the dysfunctional, deform, reform movement is like ??????

You write:

“I don’t know of any evidence against the widely-circulated rumor that Lew Rockwell was the author of the most egregious newsletter statements.”

I do. It’s right there above those statements: The words “by Ron Paul.”

That said, it really doesn’t matter if Rockwell was the ghost writer.

If you knowingly and voluntarily allow something to be advertised as “by” you, you’re accepting authorial credit, for better or for worse.

If you do that and then don’t look to see what is being published under your byline in a newsletter that you own and that has your name on it, well, you’re an idiot.

If you do that, and then ten years later take credit for it a second time and defend it (at a time when, for better or worse, it’s fairly “mainstream Republican” stuff of the era), then another ten years goes by and you decide it’s embarrassing now and decide to repudiate it and blame it on an unnamed ghost writer, that’s just horseshit.

Ron Paul is, like many politicians, related to Fonzie. He can’t bring himself to admit that he was ever wr … wrrrrrrrrrrr ….. wrrroooong. But there are some things that you have to do that on.

Fuck, even George Wallace managed to do it on this particular subject, and the Paul stuff wasn’t quite as bad in most places as Wallace’s “segregation now, segregation forever” stuff.

Those admissions don’t necessarily cover the most egregious newsletter statements, documented here: http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/angry-white-man

I don’t know of any evidence against the widely-circulated rumor that Lew Rockwell was the author of the most egregious newsletter statements.

It’s her. I can pretty much guarantee it.

Nope. To paraphrase the late Lloyd Bensten: I know Anglea Keaton. Angela Keaton is a friend of mine. And that post was not Angela Keaton.

She’s very happy to be busy working the Holiday Matching Pledge drive at AWC. Please donate today.

And Shane Cory can’t recognize a cardinal in a flock of magpies, either.

Tom @53 and @55 is right on.

You write: “he took ‘moral responsibility’ as in ‘I’m not going to quibble about this, they were in my newsletter even though I didn’t know about them.”

Yes, he did so in 2007.

In 1996, on the other hand, he admitted to being the author of the writings and defended their content.

Was he lying in 1996, or was he lying in 2007? It seems like a simple question, yet I never seem to be able to get a straight answer to it.

Me, I’ll judge him by what HE does and says, given that he does have an extensive record of his own. At least until you show me someone with a better personal record. And I’m open to finding someone with that record — eager, even, given RP’s age. So far, I haven’t been able to find such a candidate. If the Libertarian party has some hiding in its committees, kindly trot them out, not like last election (although some of the runners up seemed promising.)

liberate v. to free (a nation or area) from control by a foreign or oppressive government

intervene v. to become involved intentionally in a difficult situation in order to change it or improve it, or prevent it from getting worse

This presumes that Democratic and Republican politicians, regime bureaucrats, etc., can be counted on reliably to determine which government are oppressive, and that US invasion and occupation would make things better rather than worse.

An assumption I don’t share.

You write:

” Unless a whole new slate gets elected to the LNC (unlikely) ”

Not as unlikely as it might seem.

I haven’t heard whether or not Michael Jingozian intends to run for vice chair again, but if he’s considering a presidential run he probably won’t.

I’ve heard that Bob Sullentrup is not running for Secretary again.

If a credible candidate stands for election as treasurer, I suspect that Aaron Starr will either not run again or will lose badly.

Some of the at-large and regional reps would probably be able to work and play nicely with George; of those who wouldn’t, who knows if they’ll run again or, if they do, whether or not they’ll be re-elected?