Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [RLC-Action] Eric? Got a beef?

Expand Messages
  • Alan Turin
    I concur w/brother Thomas completely. I would suggest to Dr. Paul that he should take all of Eric s suggestions and do the opposite. That way Dr. Paul will be
    Message 1 of 13 , May 16, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      I concur w/brother Thomas completely.
       
      I would suggest to Dr. Paul that he should take all of Eric's suggestions and do the opposite. That way Dr. Paul will be assured of doing the right thing. 
       
      your most faithful and obedient servant
       
      Alan Turin

      Thomas Sewell <sharper@...> wrote:
      I must admit, while a little off-topic for RLC-Action, with Dondero's rapidly eroding RLC reputation, this post is probably the best argument so far as to why the RLC state chapters should endorse Paul for President and Congress. :)
       
      -----Original Message-----
      From: RLC-Action@yahoogro ups.com [mailto:RLC- Action@yahoogrou ps.com] On Behalf Of Barry Moore
      Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 10:39 AM
      To: RLC-Action@yahoogro ups.com
      Subject: [RLC-Action] Eric? Got a beef?

      You apparently didn't explain why.
       
      *****
       
      "I am this morning, declaring my candidacy for Congress in the GOP primaries against Ron Paul. If he does not resign his seat, and if another Republican candidate does not declare against him, I will run a balls-to-the- wall campaign for Congress in Texas CD 14.
      I am the guy that got Ron Paul elected to Congress in 1996. I can and will defeat him in 2008."
       
      Eric Dondero, Fmr. Senior Aide
      US Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX)
      1997-2003


      Don't be flakey. Get Yahoo! Mail for Mobile and
      always stay connected to friends.

    • Jeff Palmer
      Thomas is right. We ve been skirting the edge of topicality and, as the thread continues, will undoubtedly cross the line. Any further comments about Eric
      Message 2 of 13 , May 16, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Message
        Thomas is right.  We've been skirting the edge of topicality and, as the thread continues, will undoubtedly cross the line.  Any further comments about Eric should be taken to RLC-Discuss.  Discussion about what ACTION to consider regarding a challenge for Ron's congressional seat would be in order.  I hope a discussion about a possible presidential endorsement will take place in the eGroups of the respective chartered states who have yet to vote on the issue.

        Jeff Palmer (Co-Moderator) - jap@...

        Thomas Sewell <sharper@...> wrote: 

        I must admit, while a little off-topic for RLC-Action, with Dondero's rapidly eroding RLC reputation, this post is probably the best argument so far as to why the RLC state chapters should endorse Paul for President and Congress. :)


        No virus found in this outgoing message.
        Checked by AVG Free Edition.
        Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.0/803 - Release Date: 5/13/2007 12:17 PM

      • Dave Nalle
        Let me settle this argument as someone who is more neutral, as I like Paul but still think Giuliani is a more viable candidate. Paul s initial answer to the
        Message 3 of 13 , May 31, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          RE: [RLC-Action] Eric? Got a beef?
          Let me settle this argument as someone who is more neutral, as I like Paul but still think Giuliani is a more viable candidate.

          Paul's initial answer to the question was truly excellent.  He was stating principle and party tradition and hitting exactly the right note.  His response to the followup was disastrous.  Straight out of the Noam Chomsky playbook, and when Giuliani broke in it was devastating.  His response to Giuliani was even more disastrous, drawing directly on one of the  current hot arguments of the left, the idea of 'blowback.'

          The  problem here is that for anyone at all familiar with the current leftist rhetoric - just reading The New Republic would be sufficient, it's obvious that Paul is pulling his arguments against the war from the playbook of the radical left, rather than standing purely on Libertarian principle.  IMO that's a terrible mistake to make.  It makes him appear irrationally anti-war, rather than as a principled anti-interventionist.

          As for Eric's other criticisms, he has a minor point.  Paul isn't looking great.  He reminds me of Fred Astaire in his later years, and he does look a bit like he's had a mild stroke.  The claim that his hands were shaking is off base, though.  He was clearly fidgeting, not shaking.

          Dave
          -- 
          

          Scriptorium Fonts: http://www.fontcraft.com
          Ragnarok Press: http://www.ragnarokpress.com
          Customer Support: 1-800-797-8973
        • Joe Liberty
          I disagree except with the part about his initial answer being excellent. I also liked the follow-up both in terms of principle and in terms of practical
          Message 4 of 13 , May 31, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            I disagree except with the part about his initial answer being excellent.  I also liked the follow-up both in terms of principle and in terms of practical politics.  In terms of principle, I disagree that he is getting it from the left's playbook.  It sounded to me a lot like stuff of his I've been reading for years in his Texas Straight Talk and at LRC, and it sounded alot like much of the writing of many other commentators at LRC as well.  In terms of practical politics, I rather doubt he would be getting as much media attention as he is now had it not been for his exchange with Guiliani.  The issue of Iraq and blowback has generated tons of media attention that has allowed Ron the opportunity to bring attention to other RLC principles as well. 

             
            ----- Original Message ----
            From: Dave Nalle <graball@...>
            To: RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 1:58:24 PM
            Subject: RE: [RLC-Action] Eric? Got a beef?

            Let me settle this argument as someone who is more neutral, as I like Paul but still think Giuliani is a more viable candidate.

            Paul's initial answer to the question was truly excellent.  He was stating principle and party tradition and hitting exactly the right note.  His response to the followup was disastrous.  Straight out of the Noam Chomsky playbook, and when Giuliani broke in it was devastating.  His response to Giuliani was even more disastrous, drawing directly on one of the  current hot arguments of the left, the idea of 'blowback.'

            The  problem here is that for anyone at all familiar with the current leftist rhetoric - just reading The New Republic would be sufficient, it's obvious that Paul is pulling his arguments against the war from the playbook of the radical left, rather than standing purely on Libertarian principle.  IMO that's a terrible mistake to make.  It makes him appear irrationally anti-war, rather than as a principled anti-interventionis t.

            As for Eric's other criticisms, he has a minor point.  Paul isn't looking great.  He reminds me of Fred Astaire in his later years, and he does look a bit like he's had a mild stroke.  The claim that his hands were shaking is off base, though.  He was clearly fidgeting, not shaking.

            Dave
            -- 
            
            .


          • DGHarrison
            Blowback is a valid concept. Let us remember that one of the issues that helped push the Founders into a revolutionary war with England was the quartering of
            Message 5 of 13 , May 31, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              Blowback is a valid concept. Let us remember that one of the issues that helped push the Founders into a revolutionary war with England was the quartering of the King's troops in American homes. I'm not defending Islamofascists for launching their attacks on America, but I don't believe it is wise to pretend that our presence anywhere in the world -- and especially in the Middle East -- does not rankle. Whether we should be there or not is a separate issue, but the fact is the terrorists have clearly told us that they are attacking us for being there.

              People who say the Islamists "only hate us for our freedoms" are like the gossipy, vapid blonde, obsessed by her own elegance (apologies to R.F. Delderfield), who insists everyone hates her because she's pretty.

              Doug Harrison
              Minnesota


               


              --- USFamily.Net - $8.25/mo! -- Highspeed - $19.99/mo! ---

            • Robert K Stock
              Explaining why something happened is not the same thing as saying it was justified. I am amazed that so many people do not understand that simple concept.
              Message 6 of 13 , May 31, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                Explaining why something happened is not the same thing as saying it was justified.
                 
                I am amazed that so many people do not understand that simple concept.
                 
                Robert K Stock
                El Reno, Oklahoma
                ----- Original Message -----
                Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 6:49 PM
                Subject: Re: [RLC-Action] Re: Eric? Got a beef?

                Blowback is a valid concept. Let us remember that one of the issues that helped push the Founders into a revolutionary war with England was the quartering of the King's troops in American homes. I'm not defending Islamofascists for launching their attacks on America, but I don't believe it is wise to pretend that our presence anywhere in the world -- and especially in the Middle East -- does not rankle. Whether we should be there or not is a separate issue, but the fact is the terrorists have clearly told us that they are attacking us for being there.

                People who say the Islamists "only hate us for our freedoms" are like the gossipy, vapid blonde, obsessed by her own elegance (apologies to R.F. Delderfield) , who insists everyone hates her because she's pretty.

                Doug Harrison
                Minnesota


                 


                --- USFamily.Net - $8.25/mo! -- Highspeed - $19.99/mo! ---


                No virus found in this incoming message.
                Checked by AVG Free Edition.
                Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.4/825 - Release Date: 5/30/2007 3:03 PM
              • Dave Nalle
                It s not that blowback isn t real. Anyone can see that it is, though it s much more complex than the way it s usually used. The problem with Paul picking up
                Message 7 of 13 , Jun 1, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  Re: [RLC-Action] Re: Eric? Got a beef?
                  It's not that blowback isn't real.  Anyone can see that it is, though it's much more complex than the way it's usually used.  The problem with Paul picking up the term is that he started using it right at the time when it was very trendy with the left, so it makes him sound like he's aping their rhetoric, even if he hit on it all on his own.

                  Dave
                  -- 
                  

                  Scriptorium Fonts: http://www.fontcraft.com
                  Ragnarok Press: http://www.ragnarokpress.com
                  Customer Support: 1-800-797-8973
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.