PDA

View Full Version : HuffPo is getting nasty... and desperate




PastaRocket848
07-05-2011, 10:00 AM
hxxp://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-reinbach/president-ron-paul-ron-pa_b_890037.html

looks like they're pulling out the big guns. trying to associate ron with JBS, while having to constantly remind readers that what they're spewing is BS.

we must be getting somewhere... the attacks are starting. this is the second from huffpo in just a few days. it's funny to watch them scramble to try to smear a candidate who is virtually un-smearable. their only argument is basically "you probably don't agree with him" (speaking to their readership, they're probably right), or "he's friends with JBS members". pathetic.

aclove
07-05-2011, 10:10 AM
Good thing we don't need the votes of HuffPost members in a Republican primary anyway.

PastaRocket848
07-05-2011, 10:19 AM
here's a quick rebuttal of their points of disagreement, for those who don't want to give them the traffic:

According to HuffPo, if elected president Ron would....
-Allow anybody to mint money by passing the "...Free Competition in Currency Act, which repeals legal tender laws and all taxes on gold and silver.";

you can't expect liberals to understand free market competition and sound money... ignorance is bliss so long as their gravy train keeps rolling along. no liberal will ever support sound money. the party of "here, have some (pseudo) free stuff" simply has no platform without it.

Force the FDA and the FTC to allow any dietary supplement onto the market "...unless they have clear evidence that the manufacturer's clams are not true." This is a prescription for endless lawsuits.

cause, you know, medical lawsuits are so rare now i'd hate to ruin that. of course the lib solution is to let the gov't handle it... i'd prefer that be the market's job.

Kill Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid for future generations;

um... sorry guys... hate to tell you... but those programs are *already dead* for future generations. apparently the youth of the nation understand this... which means they must be smarter than your average huffpo libtard.

End Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid benefits for people getting them now --but giving them "...time to prepare for the day when responsibility for providing aide is returned to those organizations best able to administer compassionate and effective help--churches and private charities."

a blatant distortion of Ron's position. implies that ron would end grandma's check on day one. very not true. of course we should expect this from dems, fear tactics aimed at old people, they do it all the time. because it works.

Fire up to 800,000 federal workers through attrition, not filling vacancies for "non-essential" jobs.

doesn't seem like a bad idea to me. anyone think this is a bad idea? hard one to disagree with. who would try to save a non-essential job?

Veto budgets he didn't like;

ummm... yeah... he's the president.. he can veto things.

Substantially defund federal education programs;

funny dems were quick to bounce on NCLB as a bush v2.0 failure, but yet are unwilling to admit that federal interference in education is a bad idea. how can they rectify those positions?

Likewise, defund the Byrne Grants that help local police fight interstate crime; something even the conservative Heritage Foundation opposes.

why do local police fight interstate crime? isn't that what we pay marshalls to do? i used to live on the border of two states, and trust me, there is no interstate cooperation. make it across the bridge and you're home free.... i guess ohio/wv just never got one of those grants?

PastaRocket848
07-05-2011, 10:20 AM
Good thing we don't need the votes of HuffPost members in a Republican primary anyway.

no but this is the second hit when you google news "ron paul", so it's getting a wider audience.

BrendanWenzel
07-05-2011, 10:22 AM
we could get this guy banned from the google adwords network very easily. Google clearly states in their advertising policies "Publishers may not ask others to click their ads" and he clearly says at the bottom of this post "Visit my website, Reinbach's Observer. When you're there. don't forget to click on some ads to support this enterprise." Let's hit these guys where it hurts, the bottom line!

How to report him...

The form is at https://www.google.com/adsense/support/bin/request.py?contact=violation_report

It's important to let them know where he's asking for the clicks and where the ads are located (on his personal site). I'm guessing 10 or so reports will get this guy flagged pretty quickly. Wanna mess with us then you better have your ducks in a row because we've played this game before!

PastaRocket848
07-05-2011, 10:24 AM
good catch! aim your lasers... lol

PaulConventionWV
07-05-2011, 10:28 AM
What is wrong with JBS members? I don't see how that anyone could think that would be a valid argument even if you don't agree with RP.

S.Shorland
07-05-2011, 10:32 AM
That's a very convoluted and strange article,isn't it!? It's such a stretch that I can't really see why it was written.

BUSHLIED
07-05-2011, 10:32 AM
What is wrong with JBS members? I don't see how that anyone could think that would be a valid argument even if you don't agree with RP.

From what I understand, JBS USE to have a good reputation, until sometime in the 60s maybe 70s when they were against the WAR??? IS THAT TRUE?

Anyway, they are NOW associated with conspiracy theorists and nut job ultra right wing racists etc... I get their NEW AMERICAN mag and it is really good from my perspective...nothing too wild if you ask me. But generally, being associated with JBS is not good if you are mainstream gop voter....

Ron has been a keynote speaker for their organization and they support him!

PastaRocket848
07-05-2011, 10:34 AM
they're viewed as right-wing nutty types by liberals. they've spent decades calling them "extremist" or even going as far to lump them in with "patriot movement" christian terrorist groups (per the ACLU). they also have some ties to conspiracy-mongering and what not though that is less substantial. in reality they just disagree with their ideology, so they call them crazy.

funny that JBS co-sponsored CPAC this year, indicating once again that ron's message (which is largely echoed by JBS) is becoming more mainstream. up until then they had spent decades as "outcasts".

dannno
07-05-2011, 10:43 AM
Good thing we don't need the votes of HuffPost members in a Republican primary anyway.

They couldn't hurt.

wormyguy
07-05-2011, 10:46 AM
I wonder if the author of that article thinks that Obama should sign the Paul Ryan budget if it passed.

tmg19103
07-05-2011, 10:46 AM
That article is more conspiracy theory than the NWO "conspiracy" it attempts to discredit - and that's before it gets into a bizarre rant and six degrees of separation on RP and JBS.

dannno
07-05-2011, 10:52 AM
What is wrong with JBS members? I don't see how that anyone could think that would be a valid argument even if you don't agree with RP.

A lot of people see them as either or both:

Paranoid against other races
Paranoid against communism

Remember McCarthy is not given a good name in public schools, although I disagreed with the way he went about it McCarthy wasn't completely wrong.

Chester Copperpot
07-05-2011, 10:55 AM
I think people were okay with JBS until some time during the mccarthyism phase of america where supposedly the JBS president derided Eisenhower as being a communist... That sorta made them lose credibility with the people.

LibertyEagle
07-05-2011, 10:57 AM
Remember McCarthy is not given a good name in public schools, although I disagreed with the way he went about it McCarthy wasn't completely wrong.

Actually, he was right.

TheViper
07-05-2011, 11:03 AM
we could get this guy banned from the google adwords network very easily. Google clearly states in their advertising policies "Publishers may not ask others to click their ads" and he clearly says at the bottom of this post "Visit my website, Reinbach's Observer. When you're there. don't forget to click on some ads to support this enterprise." Let's hit these guys where it hurts, the bottom line!

How to report him...

The form is at https://www.google.com/adsense/support/bin/request.py?contact=violation_report

It's important to let them know where he's asking for the clicks and where the ads are located (on his personal site). I'm guessing 10 or so reports will get this guy flagged pretty quickly. Wanna mess with us then you better have your ducks in a row because we've played this game before!
Excellent catch. Reported.


As for the article, that had an air of desperation to it. I found it funny that he claimed getting out of the wars is far fetched when a large portion of the left also wants out of the wars.

PastaRocket848
07-05-2011, 11:25 AM
yeah i think the "eisenhower is a communist" thing got them a bit of bad press. that, and they do quite a bit of conspiracy mongering, or at least are viewed that way. i think this goes back to the mccarthy ties, since mccarthy effectively used conspiracy theories to push his anti-communist agenda.

Anti Federalist
07-05-2011, 11:37 AM
Wait, wut?

Ron Paul associates himself with a "conspiracy mongering" outfit?

Say it ain't so...:rolleyes:

Brian4Liberty
07-05-2011, 11:38 AM
From what I understand, JBS USE to have a good reputation, until sometime in the 60s maybe 70s when they were against the WAR??? IS THAT TRUE?


As others have said, it goes back to the JBS anti-communism stand. Since so many American communists were Jewish, being anti-communist was translated by propagandists into antisemitism. Thus the JBS was demonized.

Anti Federalist
07-05-2011, 11:40 AM
The how and when and why of the smear started against JBS, mostly by Buckley and his crew at NR...



'Bill Buckley: Pied Piper of the Establishment'

Review by Marcus Epstein

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/epstein5.html

Fifty years ago, conservatism meant opposition to big government in all its manifestations and a belief in a non-interventionist foreign policy. Today, most people associate it with preserving the legacy of Harry Truman, Martin Luther King Jr., and Hubert Humphrey, while supporting American cultural, economic, and political hegemony across the globe. What conservativism means today is at odds for what it used to stand for. What is the reason? John Birch Society president, John F. McManus, puts the blame squarely on William F. Buckley in his excellent new book, William F. Buckley Jr., Pied Piper for the Establishment.

McManus tells the story of a talented and intelligent man born into privilege. His father, James Buckley, was an exemplar of the Old Right – a staunch opponent of Roosevelt’s New Deal and drive towards war. Buckley followed in his father’s footsteps and was outspoken in his politics, but somewhere he went astray.

McManus seems to blame his shift on his left-wing professor, Wilmoore Kendall, and his membership in the Skull and Bones club, but neither of these explanations seems to give a concrete answer. By McManus’ own account, Buckley, seemed to have just as much or more influence on Kendall than vice versa. All McManus manages to say about the Skull and Bones Society is that many powerful people have been members (what would you expect of a group that picks the most promising Yale students) and they allegedly have some weird initiation practices (none of which seem any weirder than what goes on at any college fraternity).

In 1952 Buckley wrote a very telling article for the Catholic Weekly, The Commonweal, where he stated,

…we have to accept Big Government for the duration – for neither an offensive nor defensive war can be waged given our present government skills, except through the instrument of a totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores…

And if they deem Soviet power a menace to our freedom (as I happen to), they will have to support large armies and air forces, atomic energy, central intelligence, war production boards, and the attendant of centralization of power in Washington – Even with Truman at the reins of it all.

McManus sees this article as the root to Buckley’s ideology: fighting communism with internationalism and socialism.

Despite his break from much of the values of the Old Right, Buckley gained popularity among conservatives with the publication of two books, God and Men at Yale in 1951 and McCarthy and his Enemies in 1954. McManus takes a close look at these books and sees them as hardly conservative. While he generally supports the message of God and Men at Yale, he finds it disconcerting that Buckley’s main concern about the atheism and socialism taught at Yale is that the Alumni don’t support that agenda, rather than it being immoral. This criticism is somewhat unfair. Buckley did not say that there were no other reasons to oppose those beliefs. The book was designed to be an appeal to Yale Alumni, and wished for them to assert power with their pocketbooks.

McManus notes that McCarthy and his Enemies is a rather reserved defense of the maligned Senator. He finds 63 criticisms of Tailgunner Joe in the book, and notes that now Buckley blames anything in the book that can be construed as pro-McCarthy on his late coauthor Brent Bozell.

He goes on to detail Buckley’s dealings in the CIA. He shows how the agency was intentionally filled with various Trotskyites and other anti-Stalinist leftists, and believes this may have influenced Buckley’s views. He then provides evidence to suggest that National Review was in fact funded by the CIA.

National Review was staffed almost exclusively by ex-communists, many of whom were Buckley’s CIA colleagues. He gives a critical look at many of the early contributors such as James Burnham, Frank Meyer, Willi Schlamm, Whitaker Chambers, and Max Eastman. McManus describes the paradox of the situation,

Those who dominated National Review at its inception… were ex-Communists, Trotskyites, socialists, and CIA stalwarts who deplored the excesses of Communism but who had no objection to steering America away from personal freedom and national independence. Yet this was the magazine that was supposed to provide pivotal opposition to America’s increasingly dominant Eastern Establishment, whose elitists had long been laboring to undermine our nation’s independence and erode the people’s freedom!

He explains how Buckley then became one of the biggest apologists for the establishment in all its manifestations. Whenever it seemed that the conservative grassroots were ready to turn on the Council on Foreign Relations, Henry Kissinger, the United Nations, The Trilateral Commission, Richard Nixon, or the Rockerfellers, Bill Buckley always managed to defend the hated institutions. In addition to quelling the masses, it allows the establishment to say "Even Bill Buckley believes…" to make any critic of them seem like extremists. The book also explains how Buckley invited the neocons into the conservative movement and helped propel them to its leadership. It also details several leftist positions that Buckley has taken in recent years such as support for legalized abortion, a Martin Luther King Holiday, and special privileges for homosexuals.

Looking at Buckley’s legacy, McManus writes,

Buckley is now in the twilight of his life. He has done most of the damage he could ever hope to do. Yet the counterfeit conservatism he has minted is now being circulated by others, including William Bennett, Rush Limbaugh, William Kristol, and George W. Bush. The stakes in the struggle haven’t changed, even though many of the participants have. Many years ago, in his Commonweal article, Buckley recommended "a totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores… and the attendant centralization of power in Washington" as the means to fight Communism during the Cold War. Today’s neoconservatives are calling for police state powers at home and a coalition of nations under the UN in order to win the war against terrorism. As the French say: "Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose."

While this book does an excellent job of exposing Bill Buckley for the fraud that he is, it fails to fully explain the Right’s transformation. McManus puts a great deal of emphasis on Buckley’s famous Commonweal article from 1952. But while libertarians such as Murray Rothbard and Frank Chodorov condemned it as socialist and statist as soon as the article came out, by McManus’ own account, Robert Welch didn’t say a single critical word about Buckley until National Review turned its guns on the John Birch Society. Why is this? Perhaps it is because Welch overestimated the Soviet threat, and underestimated the importance of an isolationist foreign policy. While the John Birch Society and Robert Welch had reservations about America’s entry foreign wars, they usually gave the same National Review line about how to finish the job.

At the same time, McManus fails to detail how far Buckley and National Review have strayed from their original views since the early 60s. Other than a few differences over conspiracy theories and strategy, the John Birch Society and National Review pretty much saw eye to eye forty years ago. Today they have absolutely nothing in common. Buckley’s membership in the Skull and Bones Club can’t totally account for the change. Perhaps the problem all goes down to foreign policy. Buckley saw the Soviet Union as a great threat that had to be countered by the United States military. To do this he was willing to align himself with liberal anticommunists, but not with conservative non-interventionists. By trying to please these liberal anticommunists, who had much more power and prestige than he, he eventually ended mimicking them.

Despite these few flaws, this book is still a great expose of the establishment’s favorite conservative and essential reading for any person interested in the history of the conservative movement.

Bern
07-05-2011, 12:44 PM
If you want some insight into the JBS criticism, I had a good conversation with someone about this last time around (back in Jan 2008):

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=664080

sailingaway
07-05-2011, 01:13 PM
here's a quick rebuttal of their points of disagreement, for those who don't want to give them the traffic:

According to HuffPo, if elected president Ron would....

Kill Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid for future generations;

um... sorry guys... hate to tell you... but those programs are *already dead* for future generations. apparently the youth of the nation understand this... which means they must be smarter than your average huffpo libtard.

End Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid benefits for people getting them now --but giving them "...time to prepare for the day when responsibility for providing aide is returned to those organizations best able to administer compassionate and effective help--churches and private charities."

a blatant distortion of Ron's position. implies that ron would end grandma's check on day one. very not true. of course we should expect this from dems, fear tactics aimed at old people, they do it all the time. because it works.



I responded to this at HuffPo:


What you say about Ron Paul and social security is way off base. Ron Paul thinks we need to live up to our obligations to seniors as best we can, including ending unnecessary spending overseas and shifting that money to medicare and social security and the safety net. The other part is making the economy better so revenues go up, so the costs of those programs can be covered even with those spending cuts. The costs are huge and while Ron Paul voted against ALL diversions of money from those programs to other purposes, the money was in fact spent so the programs at this point are debt. Once funded, Ron wants to let kids OPT out so the government doesn't start the same cycle of pilfering from the people and not having the money to pay their obligations all over again.

The alternative is paying up to the last day when the payments don't come at all. Ron Paul is the only candidate with an actual plan to fund these programs, and you do readers a disservice by spinning that.

pipewerKz
07-05-2011, 01:14 PM
When I see articles like this I have to wonder if not Ron Paul then who do they support and what do they want? They waste no time trying to discredit Ron Paul but don't have anything else to say about the other people that are attempting to run the country. Do they want more of the same? Does one of the other candidates meet their standards? Probably not, because in the scheme of things, they are all extremists compared to Ron Paul.

hillertexas
07-05-2011, 01:20 PM
we could get this guy banned from the google adwords network very easily. Google clearly states in their advertising policies "Publishers may not ask others to click their ads" and he clearly says at the bottom of this post "Visit my website, Reinbach's Observer. When you're there. don't forget to click on some ads to support this enterprise." Let's hit these guys where it hurts, the bottom line!

How to report him...

The form is at https://www.google.com/adsense/support/bin/request.py?contact=violation_report

It's important to let them know where he's asking for the clicks and where the ads are located (on his personal site). I'm guessing 10 or so reports will get this guy flagged pretty quickly. Wanna mess with us then you better have your ducks in a row because we've played this game before!

I went to report him and he has now removed the line about clicking the ads...unless I'm missing it.

netnut
07-05-2011, 01:23 PM
“Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play.” -Joseph Goebbels-


“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”.

Mahatma Gandhi.

devil21
07-05-2011, 01:24 PM
Buried in the long tome that tries so hard to make Ron Paul a JBS person is "Again, Rep. Paul's not a JBS member" and then right back to the same innuendo.


Comments are very positive though.

dannno
07-05-2011, 01:24 PM
I went to report him and he has now removed the line about clicking the ads...unless I'm missing it.

He removed it.

TheViper
07-05-2011, 01:24 PM
I went to report him and he has now removed the line about clicking the ads...unless I'm missing it.

Either Google jumped on him quickly or he reads this forum. Or both.

Either way, well done.

sailingaway
07-05-2011, 01:27 PM
From what I understand, JBS USE to have a good reputation, until sometime in the 60s maybe 70s when they were against the WAR??? IS THAT TRUE?

Anyway, they are NOW associated with conspiracy theorists and nut job ultra right wing racists etc... I get their NEW AMERICAN mag and it is really good from my perspective...nothing too wild if you ask me. But generally, being associated with JBS is not good if you are mainstream gop voter....

Ron has been a keynote speaker for their organization and they support him!

They are spun as nuts from what I can see some are, most aren't, and that could be said of most groups. But I haven't really looked into them too much. I tried once and all I could find was the war thing and people spinning particular things (flouride) by some of their members as being the raison d etre of JBS, which is silly, of course. There may be more, but I couldn't find it. They are constitutionalists, and part of me just says the establishment really doesn't like strict constitutionalists.

Tom in NYC
07-05-2011, 01:46 PM
They are spun as nuts from what I can see some are, most aren't, and that could be said of most groups. But I haven't really looked into them too much. I tried once and all I could find was the war thing and people spinning particular things (flouride) by some of their members as being the raison d etre of JBS, which is silly, of course. There may be more, but I couldn't find it. They are constitutionalists, and part of me just says the establishment really doesn't like strict constitutionalists.

I've had a few conversations with JBS folks. Most of them are very nice and well-meaning. The general issue that always comes up is that they believe that this is a Christian nation and ought to be governed by traditional Christian social values - meaning institutionalizing them via the law. The disconnect for them between the First Amendment and what it means for people's personal lives and religious convictions was a deal breaker for me.

PastaRocket848
07-05-2011, 01:51 PM
ughhhh. i am no fan of those types. the "freedom is great! now conform to my philosophy" crowd. it's a shame the "mainstream conservatives" of this country adopt a similar stance. sadly it was our own doug wead that played a large part in making that happen back in the bush days, giving religious folks such an important role in the republican party. religion is anathema to liberty. if anything, they should be democrats. at least the ideology would permit their belief that gov't can be intrusive, so long as it is to enforce morality.

speciallyblend
07-05-2011, 02:11 PM
I've had a few conversations with JBS folks. Most of them are very nice and well-meaning. The general issue that always comes up is that they believe that this is a Christian nation and ought to be governed by traditional Christian social values - meaning institutionalizing them via the law. The disconnect for them between the First Amendment and what it means for people's personal lives and religious convictions was a deal breaker for me.

i totally agree.

specsaregood
07-05-2011, 02:14 PM
I've had a few conversations with JBS folks. Most of them are very nice and well-meaning. The general issue that always comes up is that they believe that this is a Christian nation and ought to be governed by traditional Christian social values - meaning institutionalizing them via the law. The disconnect for them between the First Amendment and what it means for people's personal lives and religious convictions was a deal breaker for me.

Funny I've met dozens of JBS folks in real life and never once had one suggest legislating christian social values. They are very limited govt people, and that doesn't jive.

musicmax
07-05-2011, 02:26 PM
we could get this guy banned from the google adwords network very easily. Google clearly states in their advertising policies "Publishers may not ask others to click their ads" and he clearly says at the bottom of this post "Visit my website, Reinbach's Observer. When you're there. don't forget to click on some ads to support this enterprise." Let's hit these guys where it hurts, the bottom line!

How to report him...

The form is at https://www.google.com/adsense/support/bin/request.py?contact=violation_report

It's important to let them know where he's asking for the clicks and where the ads are located (on his personal site). I'm guessing 10 or so reports will get this guy flagged pretty quickly. Wanna mess with us then you better have your ducks in a row because we've played this game before!

I would recommend citing this author's previous column so that (a) the article about RP doesn't get additional hits which push it up search engine lists; and (b) G00gle doesn't blame the rash of violations simply on RP supporters

This column contains the exact same "ad pimping" message:

hxxp://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-reinbach/democrats-winning-and-cla_b_884914.html

musicmax
07-05-2011, 02:28 PM
He removed it.

Not from previous columns such as this one:

hxxp://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-reinbach/democrats-winning-and-cla_b_884914.html

ForLiberty2012
07-05-2011, 04:00 PM
LOLkjh;lijkl;h

acptulsa
07-05-2011, 05:32 PM
Good thing we don't need the votes of HuffPost members in a Republican primary anyway.

I disagree completely. I think we need them desperately.

Sounds like a call to arms to me. Guess I know where I'll be spending most of my free blog time for a while. Wish their threads didn't slide so fast...

This isn't English. Is this DOSS or something? Should I ask my computer for a translation?