Tom Woods: My Memories of Jesse Benton

[parocks]

You:



I posted Reagan's history to show that he wasn't for limited government while governor, and that he didn't make some ideological turn after being shot. Deflect away.

My point - Ron Paul supported Reagan after he was governor. Therefore, you are disagreeing with Ron Paul. I'm talking 1976 and 1980.

Ron Paul liked Reagan after he was Governor.

Not after he was President.

Since we were talking about candidates, and not Presidents, it is entirely true that Reagan was a Conservative in 1976 and 1980. Ron Paul saw him as a Conservative in 1980. That makes this assessment, here on RPF, definitive.

 

[parocks]

Ron Paul can make mistakes, too.

Is this feedingtheabscessforums.com?

Or is it ronpaulforums.com?

It's ronpaulforums.com.

This is a place where Ron Paul is right.

 

[The Gold Standard]

Is this feedingtheabscessforums.com?

Or is it ronpaulforums.com?

It's ronpaulforums.com.

This is a place where Ron Paul is right.

Are you serious? How the fuck are you any different from the sheep that bleat Romney or Obama talking points then? It is a Ron Paul website, so he is infallible?

 

[erowe1]

Well, there was that one time that Ron Paul thought he was wrong about something, but then it turned out he was right after all.

 

[sailingaway]

Is this feedingtheabscessforums.com?

Or is it ronpaulforums.com?

It's ronpaulforums.com.

This is a place where Ron Paul is right.

Ron is SINCERE, but he himself, in the video I posted and in the letter he wrote in 1988, said Reagan didn't live up to his message. He loved the message and it was the best message out there in 1976. He wanted to make it happen. The alternatives were a LOT worse, and weren't interested in even discussing a gold commission. So Ron threw himself behind Reagan, to try to make rhetoric reality. That isn't cupidity, it is hope.

 

[sailingaway]

Are you serious? How the fuck are you any different from the sheep that bleat Romney or Obama talking points then? It is a Ron Paul website, so he is infallible?

No, he is pretending that is an enforced standard. You well know if that is true, without their input.

 

[presence]

Ron Paul does not have a lot of competent people who he can trust to choose from.

None of those 100k college kids he spoke to would have fit the bill? Surely some of the Cornell grad students could be trusted.

 

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Since we were talking about candidates, and not Presidents, it is entirely true that Reagan was a Conservative in 1976 and 1980. Ron Paul saw him as a Conservative in 1980. That makes this assessment, here on RPF, definitive.

How is it true? What did Reagan actually DO that made him a proponent of limited government leading up to '76? Paul learned that Reagan was all talk and no walk but at least he eventually admitted that Reagan was a failure and refused to back off from his criticisms (even with Rick Perry trying to smear him for it). The same thing happened when he took Bachmann under his wings a few years ago. She claimed to embrace the free market but fast forward to Paul's appearance on Leno in December and he called her an anti-Muslim.

 

[Ivash]

When he took over the Rand Paul campaign, the only thing he had to do was NOT fuck it up. It was on autopilot in the general. (Which he did manage to do, thankfully.)

This isn't as much about Benton's future as it is McConnell's. If you guys don't think that the establishment will run Mitch in 2016 to fend off a Rand run, I don't know what to tell you.

Which is exactly my point. He could have messed things up, but he didn't. Had he done so no one in politics would have ever looked at him again.

For campaign managers winning is always the best employment strategy.

 

[Deborah K]

People in the campaign were telling me the entire Ron Paul 2012 operation was about paving the way for a Rand nomination in 2016, particularly after SC. I heard this from multiple people at the national level, including two that were at the absolute top of the inner circle. The only way Rand doesn't run is if scandal hits.

Ding ding ding!!! I no longer believe they were EVER in it to win it.

Can anyone relay a scenario on how Rand stands a chance in 2016 if Romney wins in 2012? What are the odds?

 

[parocks]

How is it true? What did Reagan actually DO that made him a proponent of limited government leading up to '76? Paul learned that Reagan was all talk and no walk but at least he eventually admitted that Reagan was a failure and refused to back off from his criticisms (even with Rick Perry trying to smear him for it). The same thing happened when he took Bachmann under his wings a few years ago. She claimed to embrace the free market but fast forward to Paul's appearance on Leno in December and he called her an anti-Muslim.

There isn't any arguing facts there about whether Reagan was in fact Conservative.

Ron Paul supported him.

That makes him Conservative through the 1976 election, through the 1980 election. The candidate was Conservative.

This assessment is based entirely on Ron Pauls support of him in 1976 and 1980.

This is Ron Paul forums.

If this was Rick Santorum forums, we wouldn't be able to say that Reagan was Conservative because Ron Paul supported him. But this is Ron Paul forums, and because of that, we CAN say thatRon Paul's support MAKES Reagan Conservative.

 

[parocks]

None of those 100k college kids he spoke to would have fit the bill? Surely some of the Cornell grad students could be trusted.

They aren't competent enough.

We're talking about a high level job here. Those 100K college students, some of them, did get jobs with RP.

 

[erowe1]

There isn't any arguing facts there about whether Reagan was in fact Conservative.

Ron Paul supported him.

That makes him Conservative through the 1976 election, through the 1980 election. The candidate was Conservative.

This assessment is based entirely on Ron Pauls support of him in 1976 and 1980.

This is Ron Paul forums.

If this was Rick Santorum forums, we wouldn't be able to say that Reagan was Conservative because Ron Paul supported him. But this is Ron Paul forums, and because of that, we CAN say thatRon Paul's support MAKES Reagan Conservative.

So the truthfulness of the claim that Reagan was a conservative depends on what website you're on when you make the claim?

 

[sailingaway]

There isn't any arguing facts there about whether Reagan was in fact Conservative.

Ron Paul supported him.

That makes him Conservative through the 1976 election, through the 1980 election. The candidate was Conservative.

This assessment is based entirely on Ron Pauls support of him in 1976 and 1980.

This is Ron Paul forums.

If this was Rick Santorum forums, we wouldn't be able to say that Reagan was Conservative because Ron Paul supported him. But this is Ron Paul forums, and because of that, we CAN say thatRon Paul's support MAKES Reagan Conservative.

parocks, this is getting old, and is attack on modding which you are supposed to raise by appeal to Josh and Bryan jointly.

if someone thinks the moon is made of pink elephants, you can say 'I disagree and have this basis to believe otherwise' or can say, 'you're a 'f-ing loon! how delusional!' and mimic and mock them.

The second will get you in trouble with mods regardless of what the moon may be made of. And while disagreement with Ron is always permitted, tag teaming to drive his supporters discussing him in his forum to some other avenue isn't. That is agression. Similarly, if people go to Rand's forum and start to drive people away saying how bad they might think he is, past a comment or two, (or not even that if it is an outright slur) we won't let it continue if it is brought to our attention. that is because the subforums are primarily for support of those candidates. That does not mean you can't disagree with them, just not trash them. And I'm pretty sure you know it. You just want to push an agenda freely whether it involves ridicule of forum members or not.

 

[parocks]

Are you serious? How the fuck are you any different from the sheep that bleat Romney or Obama talking points then? It is a Ron Paul website, so he is infallible?

Basically, yes. Ron Paul is right on a Ron Paul website.

 

[sailingaway]

So the truthfulness of the claim that Reagan was a conservative depends on what website you're on when you make the claim?

I'm not sure if your sarcasm meter is off or if mine is

 

[parocks]

Ron is SINCERE, but he himself, in the video I posted and in the letter he wrote in 1988, said Reagan didn't live up to his message. He loved the message and it was the best message out there in 1976. He wanted to make it happen. The alternatives were a LOT worse, and weren't interested in even discussing a gold commission. So Ron threw himself behind Reagan, to try to make rhetoric reality. That isn't cupidity, it is hope.

We're in agreement.

Reagan = Conservative in 1976 (Ron Paul supported him)
Reagan = Conservative in 1980 (Ron Paul supported him)
Reagan /= Conservative in 1988 (Ron Paul repudiated him)

This is the official Ron Paul story. You're a moderator.

The reason we're having this argument about Reagan is we were trying to determine whether or not the home of Conservatives is in the Republican Party.

And I went through, from 1940, noting the Conservatives who ran for President.

And 1976 was Reagan (the Conservative, who was supported by Ron Paul) vs Ford
And 1980 was Reagan (the Conservative, who was supported by Ron Paul) vs Bush

I'm not arguing about what happened after Reagan was elected, I was just arguing that the Conservative Candidate was Reagan in 1976 and 1980.

 

[erowe1]

I'm not sure if your sarcasm meter is off or if mine is

I don't know. It looked like he started off serious and then just dug in his heels and started saying stuff that would pass for satire. I honestly can't tell.

 

[parocks]

I'm not sure if your sarcasm meter is off or if mine is

No, that's entirely true. Because we're opinions here, and Ron Paul's opinion wins here. It won't win somewhere else maybe, but it does here.

 

[sailingaway]

parocks, I'll wait until you catch up in the thread. But stop it.

If your argument is that the public CONSIDER the GOP to be the conservative party based on candidate rhetoric and what they have to say to get elected in that party, that fits. Sorta.