The Sex Pistols and Ron Paul The Tonight Show

Jay Leno will have The Sex Pistols and Ron Paul on this evening's Tonight Show. Link

[#1 posted by mrfitz , October 30, 2007 12:25 PM]

i thought sid and nancy died

[#2 posted by Abby , October 30, 2007 12:33 PM]

The Sex Pistols were manufactured in the first place. That Sid and Nancy received so much posthumous credit is, frankly, amusing. Also, there are plenty of bands that keep touring without a former member. That doesn't mean they're any good, though.

[#3 posted by Peter Swimm , October 30, 2007 12:37 PM]

At this point with the pistols being on the guitar hero soundtrack, i'd say Ron Paul has the slight edge in Punk points.

[#4 posted by js7a , October 30, 2007 12:57 PM]

Paul's "We the People Act" shows just how much of a libertarian he is. It would allow state and local governments to outlaw abortion, sex acts, and would let them use tax dollars for displays of religious text and images. It would prevent the federal courts from spending any money to enforce their judgments.

Paul is a damed authoritarian. There's a lot good about him, but he wants very different things than what his ill-informed supporters say.

That said, I am registering Republican and voting for him in the primaries. I'll do anything I can to motivate him to run as a third-party spoiler.

[#5 posted by hemidemisemiquaver , October 30, 2007 1:08 PM]

The sex pistols may have been manufactured, but they were *extremely* influential. Also, you certainly can't say they're not abiding by the punk ethos given things like this:

Sex Pistols Spit on Hall of Fame Honor

"Next to the SEX PISTOLS rock and roll and that hall of fame is a piss stain," the statement read. "Your museum. Urine in wine. Were (sic) not coming. Were (sic) not your monkey and so what?"

egotistical much? But the sentiment is pure anti-establishment, something "pop punk" bands like Fall out Boy or Green Day are entirely disconnected from.

[#6 posted by Skwid , October 30, 2007 1:09 PM]

Maybe Leno just got confused?

[#7 posted by Flying Squid , October 30, 2007 1:12 PM]

Paul is also a racist. From here (and elsewhere too):

Paul reported on gang crime in Los Angeles and commented, “If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.”

“Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,’ I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal,” Paul said

Paul also wrote that although “we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.”

[#8 posted by js7a , October 30, 2007 1:24 PM]

Don't forget these gems:

"Black males age 13 are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult.... Actual and potential terrorists ... identified by the color of their skin are destroying America... 'Complex embezzling' is a 100 percent white and Asian crime...." -- Ron Paul Survival Report, 1992

[#9 posted by Mark Frauenfelder , October 30, 2007 1:30 PM]

That's disgusting. I hope Leno asks him about this, though I doubt he will.

[#10 posted by cavalier , October 30, 2007 1:45 PM]

Maybe he'll share some Doritos!

[#11 posted by Nomascerdo , October 30, 2007 1:49 PM]

The racist quotes attributed in these comments to Ron Paul are not his words. They were written and included in a newsletter he used to allow his name to be applied to but did not carefully oversee. He has addressed this mistake (lack of oversight) but took responsibility for it since these horrible words were published in his name.

Ron Paul also is opposed to Federal death penalty because he believes the system has been unfair and wrong too many times (which has hurt minority individuals disproportionately). He is also opposed to the federal drug war and the criminalization of non-violent offenses (again which have hurt minority individuals disproportionately).

Here is something Ron Paul wrote in December 2002 on the subject which is a legitimate quote and description of his views:

What Really Divides Us?

The overwhelming media response to recent remarks by Senator Trent Lott shows that the nation remains incredibly sensitive about matters of race, despite the outward progress of the last 40 years. A nation that once prided itself on a sense of rugged individualism has become uncomfortably obsessed with racial group identities.

In the aftermath of the Lott debacle, we must not allow the term "states’ rights" to be smeared and distorted into code words for segregationist policies or racism. States’ rights simply means the individual states should retain authority over all matters not expressly delegated to the federal government in Article I of the Constitution. Most of the worst excesses of big government can be traced to a disregard for states’ rights, which means a disregard for the Ninth and Tenth amendments. The real reason liberals hate the concept of states’ right has nothing to do with racism, but rather reflects a hostility toward anything that would act as a limit on the power of the federal government.

Yet it is the federal government more than anything else that divides us along race, class, religion, and gender lines. The federal government, through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails in our society. This government "benevolence" crowds out genuine goodwill between men by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. Americans know that factors other than merit in the free market often play a part in the success of some, and this leads to resentment and hostility between us.

Still, the left argues that stringent federal laws are needed to combat racism, always implying of course that southern states are full of bigoted rednecks who would oppress minorities if not for the watchful eye of Washington. They ignore, however, the incredible divisiveness created by their collectivist big-government policies.

Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views individuals only as members of racial groups.

Conservatives and libertarians should fight back and challenge the myth that collectivist liberals care more about racism. Modern liberalism, however well-intentioned, is a byproduct of the same collectivist thinking that characterizes racism. The continued insistence on group thinking only inflames racial tensions.

The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity. In a free market, businesses that discriminate lose customers, goodwill, and valuable employees- while rational businesses flourish by choosing the most qualified employees and selling to all willing buyers. More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct what is essentially a sin of the heart, we should understand that reducing racism requires a shift from group thinking to an emphasis on individualism.

[#12 posted by Flying Squid , October 30, 2007 1:57 PM]

Can you please provide evidence that these were not Paul's words? Forgive me for not taking you at face value, but your posting a big screed there where he says racism is bad doesn't mean he hasn't said racist things. David Duke said racism was bad too. Claimed he wasn't a racist.

[#13 posted by mindysan33 , October 30, 2007 2:07 PM]

I'm not liking this racist rhetoric of Paul's. I find it utterly depressing. But I'm not crazy about certain aspects of the libertarian platform anyhow. At this point I'm way too jaded to get too excited over anyone in this large pool of candidates, with the exception of one Dr. Stephen T. Colbert, DFA. Too bad he's only running SC... sigh... :-(

I've noticed that most people either think the london punk scene was authentic, or they think it's a big rip off of the earlier US scenes, which would inform ones opinion about the Pistols (in fact, when I was writing a paper on the topic of London punk, this one punk kid at school I had a class with expressed his disdain for the Pistols and the London scene in no uncertain terms when we were chatting about books on punk). It seems to depend on which variant of punk you like, I've noticed. I think of the sex pistols as being used, mostly. They were all incredibly young when they got together. Certainly, McLaren was jumping on a particular band (ha, get it band- I'm so funny...) wagon in his management of them, but so was the manager for the Clash (whose name is escaping me at the moment? Bernie Rhodes, is that right?). And he was famous for that, anyhow. I like them, but I'm not a huge fan, but they have a place in history, I think- especially on the impact they had on other bands- how many folks saw them, said, I can do that, and then did it. Joy Division comes to mind. PIL was always a much better band, but my personal taste tend to lean towards post-punk anyhow. I might tune in, just to see what happens. It seems like a bizarre trio on the show, though, doesn't it?

Mindysan

[#14 posted by Nomascerdo , October 30, 2007 2:13 PM]

Here is a snippet from an interview done by Muckraker Report which shows his personal response to the allegations:

Muckraker Report: In a 1992 newsletter, arguing that government should lower the age at which juvenile criminals can be protected as adults, you wrote, "We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." In the same newsletter, you also wrote, "What else do we need to know about the political establishment than that it refuses to discuss the crimes that terrify Americans on the grounds that doing so is racist? Why isn't that true of complex embezzling, which is 100 percent white and Asian?" Obviously, there are many Americans and not just blacks and Asians, who would find these comments upsetting. What would you say to these people?

Congressman Ron Paul: In 1992, I was back in medicine full time, but lent my name to a foundation that published large volumes of material. A staffer wrote some things under my name that I did not approve. I have taken responsibility for these comments and apologized. If you look at my 30-year record and my numerous writings on the subject of race, I think anyone will clearly see that these comments do not reflect my beliefs.

*** His comments on the Imus controversy:

Let's be perfectly clear: the federal government has no business regulating speech in any way. Furthermore, government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combating bigotry in our society. Bigotry at its essence is a sin of the heart, and we can't change people's hearts by passing more laws and regulations.

***

While neither of these items 'prove' he didn't write those words, his record is in overwhelming opposition to them and he has been a public figure for 30 years, written books, bills, articles, and legislation etc.

I will also point out that people try to smear him as an anti-semite because he thinks the US should stop giving foreign aid to Israel. This is ridiculous on several levels. Primarily because he wants to stop giving foreign aid to every country, not just Israel. In addition, his personal hero and intellectual touchstone is Ludwig Von Mises the "uncontested dean of the Austrian School of economics" and founder of the modern libertarian philosophy. Oh, I forgot to mention that Mises is an Ukranian born Jew.

[#15 posted by Flying Squid , October 30, 2007 2:25 PM]

Well let's say your right and Ron Paul put his name on a newsletter that then put out racist information... Don't you think that someone who can't even pay attention to what people are doing with his name and approval might not be the best candidate for public office?

Whether he wrote those words or not, what sort of person puts his name on a newsletter and doesn't bother to check whether or not the newsletter in his name represents his views?

[#16 posted by Flying Squid , October 30, 2007 2:29 PM]

Crap. Did I actually misuse the word 'your?' Apparently senility has come early for me.

[#17 posted by bardfinn , October 30, 2007 2:55 PM]

JS7A: I wish that everyone who intended to vote for Ron Paul were as well informed as you seem to be. Thanks.

[#18 posted by Nomascerdo , October 30, 2007 2:57 PM]

I'm not defending his mistake and I agree that he should have never allowed it to happen but it did happen and he did take responsibility for it.

However, putting his mistake in perspective, when I look at all of the things that the other candidates do, say, pander, and vote for I consider this to be minor especially since at the time he was a full time practicing obstetrician and not a public official.

Hillary voted for this war and for the resolution to give the president sole authority to bomb Iran pre-emptively without asking Congress to declare war. She also has some serious campaign finance skeletons in her closet among other very shady dealings (whitewater e.g.) Worse she now claims she is against the war (and somehow always was??) but refuses to say she will end it or bring troops home before 2013. She is also the largest recipient of 3Q campaign donations from the major military contracting companies. Hmmmm Is all of that worse than not checking a newsletter before it was published?

Romney says he wants to double Guantanamo and that torture is acceptable and has changed his tune to pander. He also thinks he should ask his lawyers if it is OK to pre-emptively bomb Iran, not Congress. Giuliani says the same along with official associations with pedophiles and criminals and other questionable things like completely changing his historical views on key issues just to run in this election. Even Huckabee had 14 ethics complaints while governor of Arkansas, five of which resulted in findings against him not to mention a tax record that is less than stellar. Worse than not checking a newsletter before it was published?

I could go on and on...

[#19 posted by Nomascerdo , October 30, 2007 3:00 PM]

Hey, we don't have editors checking our spelling and grammar here in the comment section although I often wish I did. Before I wrote "...an Ukranian born Jew"

Ouch

[#20 posted by Flying Squid , October 30, 2007 3:05 PM]

I'm not suggesting it is any worse. I am suggesting that it is the sort of thing that makes him a poor candidate.

[#21 posted by FreedomJoyAdventure , October 30, 2007 3:11 PM]

There's a lot of nasty, misleading, and downright dishonest BS being written here and elsewhere about Ron Paul. The disinformation smear campaign is in full swing.

Ron Paul's record in Congress speaks for itself and can be researched. Don't believe anything you hear, and only half of what you see.

Ron Paul is not a racist. Imagine having to defend yourself for something an aide did in your name, which is exactly what happened.

I've known about him since 1984. He has the best record of any living politician for upholding the Constitution. If he votes against something, you can bet it violates the Constitution. If he was as bad as some people say, why did his constituents re-elect him so many times?

He is consistent. You can find video clips of him on YouTube from years ago, you can see for yourself that he hasn't changed his tune. As far as I'm concerned, he has more honor and integrity than all the other candidates combined.

[#22 posted by Nomascerdo , October 30, 2007 3:14 PM]

I hear you but in my estimation it is substantially 'less worse' than all of my grievances with virtually every other candidate which seem to cost infinitely more life, blood, and treasure. Anyhow, see you at the voting booth!

[#23 posted by Nomascerdo , October 30, 2007 3:16 PM]

oops ...I forgot to mention the cost of losing our unique constitutional republic and personal liberties!

[#24 posted by Flying Squid , October 30, 2007 3:29 PM]

FreedomJoyAdventure said: "If he votes against something, you can bet it violates the Constitution."

Please explain how the following votes listed on http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm involve constitutional violations:

# Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
# Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
# Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
# Voted YES on restricting bankruptcy rules. (Jan 2004)
# Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
# Voted NO on allowing stockholder voting on executive compensation. (Apr 2007)
# Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels.
# Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids. (Apr 2003)
# Voted YES on requiring photo ID for voting in federal elections. (Sep 2006)
# Voted NO on restricting employer interference in union organizing. (Mar 2007)
# Voted NO on increasing minimum wage to $7.25. (Jan 2007)
# Voted NO on establishing "network neutrality" (non-tiered Internet). (Jun 2006)

[#25 posted by Flying Squid , October 30, 2007 3:31 PM]

Pardon me, you said votes against, so ignore the yes votes.

[#26 posted by Lars Haeh , October 30, 2007 4:03 PM]

This was really the last place I expected to be stuck staring at a RP story. I guess enough of his supporters were sending in stories to get this non-story featured. I wish that the editors of BB would realize the same thing that radio stations did in the 70's: The people calling in to request songs are not representative of the general audience.

I don't have much of a problem with RP, in fact I'm glad that the new right is going in this direction. His internet supporters, however, are detestable trolls.

[#27 posted by js7a , October 30, 2007 4:22 PM]

@FreedomJoyAdventure: If he isn't the racist who wrote that crap, then he delegated to someone who was and failed to supervise him.

Which is worse, as far as qualifications for the presidency?

[#28 posted by Teresa Nielsen Hayden / Moderator , October 30, 2007 5:07 PM]

Lars Haeh (26), it's not a simple plebiscite. The boingers blog what interests them.

[#29 posted by Empact , October 30, 2007 5:21 PM]

@JS7A (27): Are you seriously asking this question? Hillary, who voted for the war and patriot act, helping enable the hundreds of thousands of deaths we've seen since (American and Iraqi), and trillions of dollars spent, versus a busy guy who unintentionally allowed a jackass to write under his name?

Seriously, look at his 30+ year record and his writings, these statements are ridiculously out of style for him, and only happen in a few week period 10 years ago. This is a pointless, irrelevant smear.

@Lars Haeh (26): Sorry, I'll grant that some of us are a bit over-zealous, but the campaign is growing and those people are becoming more and more a minority. Look around on youtube and the like, or in your local community, and you'll find we're mostly just regular folks concerned about the direction of the country toward more war and more centralized power, and towards less accountability from the people.

[#30 posted by Nomascerdo , October 30, 2007 5:36 PM]

From Wikipedia: An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who intentionally posts controversial or contrary messages in an on-line community such as an on-line discussion forum with the intention of baiting users into an argumentative response.[1]

Lars - I think if you read the chronological progression of the comments under this post the 'troll-like activity', according to the definition, was actually started when someone accused RP of being a racist. That is clearly a 'controversial and contrary' claim and while intent is impossible to assess, calling someone a racist is very likely to 'bait users into an argumentative response.' That looks like textbook troll-like behavior to me.

Furthermore, I'm not sure how defending the man against such a claim, which many strongly believe is patently false and using supporting documents to counter the claim, could be considered 'detestable' as you put it. I think that accusing an honorable man of being a racist, on a public forum without disclosing that these claims are disputed, are contrary to his 30 year record, and have been addressed by the man himself is far more 'detestable' behavior!

But then again, I also think that voting to authorize sending our men and women to an endless war under false pretenses, or being voted into office to end the war but being completely impotent to fulfill your mandate is truly 'detestable' so maybe our definitions of the word are different. That must be it.

[#31 posted by Teresa Nielsen Hayden / Moderator , October 30, 2007 6:04 PM]

Nomascerdo, if I think there's trolling going on, I'll put a stop to it. There've been legitimate questions raised about Ron Paul, and legitimate arguments in response. That's fine.

Lars isn't responsible for your argumentive response.

[#32 posted by Paul D , October 30, 2007 7:13 PM]

Flying Squid: You've mischaracterized many of those votes. Ron Paul didn't vote to ban stem cell research; he voted against federal funding for the research, because the Constitution doesn't authorize it.

In nearly all those cases, it's not a matter of him voting for or against something; it's a matter of him voting 'yes' or 'no' on whether the federal government is allowed to control that issue in the first place. There is no other Congressman who always votes according to the law and his conscience the way Dr. Paul does; he is literally the only incorruptible politician in DC, the kind of person that only comes along once every century or so.

He has admitted there are a slim, slim minority of votes where he wasn't sure what the right and constitutional way to vote was, and he admits as much. You can easily Google to find his comments on those bills.

On the other hand, every other politician is selling out your freedoms and engaging in corruption every single day. But sure, a few minor votes taken wildly out of context is a good way to smear him here on Boing Boing, especially if you're one of the first to comment.

Dr. Paul is an extremely difficult Congressman to find error with, and most smear attempts (like the false racist allegations from 30 years ago) only convince fools who can't think for themselves, can't research the facts, and are likely to end up with the lousy government they deserve.

[#33 posted by Teresa Nielsen Hayden / Moderator , October 30, 2007 7:16 PM]

Paul D. (32)

There is no other Congressman who always votes according to the law and his conscience the way Dr. Paul does; he is literally the only incorruptible politician in DC, the kind of person that only comes along once every century or so.

Oh honey, they'll only break your heart.

[#34 posted by hassan-i-sabbah , October 30, 2007 8:28 PM]

Any hoo , here is the Sex Pistols ,any offense is completely deliberate :
She was a girl from birmingham
She just had an abortion
She was a case of insanity
Her name was pauline she lived in a tree
She was a no one who killed her baby
She sent her letters from the country
She was an animal she was a bloody disgrase

Body Im not an animal
Body Im not an animal

Dragged on a table in factory
Illegitimate place to be
In a packet in a lavatory
Die little baby screaming fucking bloody mess
Its not an animal its an abortion

Body Im not animal
Mummy Im not an abortion

Throbbing squirm, gurgling bloody mess
Im not an discharge, Im not a loss in
Protein, Im not a throbbing squirm

Fuck this and fuck that fuck it all and
Fuck the fucking brat
She dont wanna baby that looks like that
I dont wanna baby that looks like that
Body Im not an animal
Body Im not an abortion

Body Im not an animal
An animal
Im not an animal...
Im not an abortion...

Mummy! ugh!

[#35 posted by Clay , October 30, 2007 8:40 PM]

Is Ron Paul incorruptible?

Can a ship be unsinkable?

Certainly, to idealize any public figure is to set oneself up for disillusionment. But to accept that they do have faults, and despite that, decide that they still have a better voting record and a clearer and more consistent platform than their opponents: That may be a good idea.

[#36 posted by Nomascerdo , October 30, 2007 9:10 PM]

So was Johnny Rotten pro-life or pro-choice? ; )

[#37 posted by Anonymous , October 30, 2007 9:41 PM]

Anyone see the Sex Pistols just a few moments ago? Wow, what a let down.

[#38 posted by Genghazoid , October 30, 2007 11:13 PM]

They ought to have Jello Biafra and Stephen Colbert on there next!

Now that, I would watch.

[#39 posted by Lars Haeh , October 31, 2007 1:45 AM]

Teresa Nielsen Hayded: I'm well aware, and thankful that that is the case. I just feel that this story may have been the result of "the loud minority" doing their best to win favor. Also, I had no idea you were a mod until going to paste your name in, if that isn't intentional then maybe something like an additional icon or color change for your name might make it a bit more obvious.

(warning, lots of swearing/venting in this reply)
Nomascerdo: I didn't mean that kind of troll. I was going more for a defination along the lines of the unsociable, assholes who pollute my favorite websites with crap that no one cares about with lack of regard to the sites they wreak havoc on or the users they infuriate. People who I imagine to be self important assholes who don't care about others in real life as well. Maybe "griefers" would have been a better term. I didn't mention it, but no, I didn't read the comments, I'd rather this story just not be here, I've seen more RP discussions then any man should ever have to deal with anyway.

Empact: Indeed, I have been noticeing less, and less RP stories. I'm honestly not sure if it was from the backlash of users like me or from people wising up to the fact that too much information will make the public turn off. Either way, I'm glad. Really, I feel a big connection to moderate Liberaltarians, and am glad to see the Republican party changing to reflect this way of thinking. Even better though, would be a system with a few parties like we have here.

This is pretty much my view on Liberaliterianism, lifted from the Slashdot story" Why Are So Many Nerds Libertarians?":

There are two reasons that geeks tend to be social liberals. First, they've generally experienced the short end of the stick with respect to the sort of social conformity that conservatives and populists like. Telling other people who to live their personal lives and what kinds of entertainment they should enjoy doesn't go over well with geeks. They also tend not to buy into the "pep rally" form of patriotism that social conservatives favor.

Second, there's a greater trend in the geek population away from the sort of religious belief. Few geeks have the religious motivation to be against abortion and gay marriage, the two social rallying flags of social conservatives today in America.

So, that pretty much only leaves the economic axis to worry about to differentiate the remaining geek populace into either liberals or libertarians. This is why this Slashdot poll did not surprise me in the least. While there was no populist/authoritarian option, conservative was the least picked choice of the mainstream political beliefs, and liberal and libertarian were the top two.

So, then the question fundamentally comes down to, "What do you fear the most?"

1. An inefficient government running roughshod over you (taxation, interference in property rights, tyranny of the majority, etc).
2. Powerful, unaccountable private entities running roughshod over you (monopolies, externalities, inequity of power, etc).

Of course, this is a bit of an oversimplification (as is the notion that most people fit into these little political boxes), but it mostly suffices. I find that most libertarian and most liberal points of view come down to concerns that their favorite bogeyman will ruin everything if left unchecked and powerless. More nuanced views come from realizing that they both are pretty bad and that you have to make a choice how to balance them (even if you tend to throw the balance almost entirely one way or the other). The crazy ideologues you see here on Slashdot and elsewhere are the people who seem to never acknowledge that the other side's feared enemy is a problem too.

http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=286207&cid=20441809

The replies to it do a good job of clarifying the position as well.

[#40 posted by Anonymous , October 31, 2007 2:17 AM]

Please god make Johnny Rotten die. If I'm 60 and still think I'm fifteen I hope someone has the common decency to put me out of everyone else's misery.

Ron Paul for 08'

[#41 posted by Anonymous , October 31, 2007 3:26 AM]

Who called Dr. Paul authoritarian for allowing states to outlaw abortion, sex acts, etc...? What an incredibly stupid thing to say.

If you understood federalism and the Constitution, and especially the Bill of Rights, you would know that none of those "issues" are federal. I personally would oppose state laws which outlawed sex acts and stuff like that, but how does returning those powers to the states by respecting the constitution make Dr. Paul an authoritarian?

For the rest of the ill-informed populace, I suggest you learn why the bill of rights was added to the Constitution. It was not added to protect individual rights the way we think of them today since that would empower federal courts to strike down state laws. The bill of rights was not a grant of power to any branch of the federal government. You can look at the bill of rights as essentially a superfluous restraint on federal power. Another way to look at it is as a declaration of federal non-intervention in ALL DOMESTIC MATTERS not delegated to the federal government via Article I Section VIII or anywhere else in the constitution.

Dr. Paul an authoritarian? Please. Pull your head out of your ass, stop watching these moronic talking heads on tv and try thinking for yourself once in a while.

[#42 posted by nex , October 31, 2007 4:21 AM]

The post's headline no verb ;->

[#43 posted by iain010100 , October 31, 2007 7:37 AM]

I saw Johnny Rotten when he was doing a tour as PIL. Good show. Quite an entertainer. Not familiar with that whole genre, I was surprised that the audience got constant insults from the guy. "And the crowd goes mild!"

[#44 posted by Anonymous , October 31, 2007 7:47 AM]

Ugh yeah I saw that wonderful performance last night. Reminded me of the old rock star character from Love Actually. Cashing in...

[#45 posted by Abby , October 31, 2007 8:35 AM]

Lord. I'm staying well out of the political debate going on. As far as I'm concerned our choices as they look from this side of the primaries are thin... which will only get worse. I'm sure the mud-fights have yet to begin.

hemidemisemiquaver , no, you're absolutely right. They were incredibly influential and continue to be so. That still doesn't mean they're any good.
As far as "modern punk" as it's called, you're spot-on there, as well. Still, as much as they suck, they do have broader appeal than the Sex Pistols did at their height.

[#46 posted by Nomascerdo , October 31, 2007 8:56 AM]

Lars,

Point taken and I apologize for my 'argumentative response' (I took your comment personally which it seems I shouldn't have). There is nothing to be said of the trolls you speak of except to ignore them.

Sadly, the frustration that drives many RP supporters to behave the way they do is a reaction to the major media and news outlets having transformed into political propaganda machines. There is literally zero reporting going on. It is just pundits and editors spinning and crafting opinion and it is disturbing to say the least.

Did you watch the Democratic debates last night? Chris Matthews' post debate interviews were insanely dumb and pointless. Zero questions of substance. Bill Richardson is up there talking about his positions (our country is at WAR) and Chris is asking him about why he 'defended Hillary'. Even after he answered the question they went and showed the clip from the debate. Even worse, then the whole Kucinich UFO line of questioning was relentless. He put words into Richardson's mouth, and wouldn't stop asking the most irrelevant question. C'mon if Kucinich saw a UFO ask HIM about it. At least ask the other candidates real questions that are relevant to their candidacy. Why does the whole thing have to death spiral? Pathetic

Anyhow, it is my opinion that RP supporters merely reflect the terrible state of major media and news and the tremendous frustration out there with their repeated failures and blatant manipulations. Unfortunately that frustration is vented in online forums and chat rooms.

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

On a related note to much of the conversation in this string:

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA--Public opinion service Rasmussen Reports recently released data indicating that Texas congressman Ron Paul is the top Republican presidential candidate among African-American voters.

1200 individuals were polled and asked if they preferred Ron Paul to Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. 33 percent of Black voters chose Congressman Paul over Senator Clinton and 31 percent over Senator Obama. Rasmussen Reports polled voters on their preference for the other GOP contenders over Clinton and Obama, and all polled lower than Congressman Paul. John McCain was preferred over Clinton and Obama by 24 and 16 percent, and Mitt Romney by 20 and 27 percent, respectively. Rudy Giuliani was only preferred to Clinton by 15 percent, and to Obama by 17 percent.

Congressman Paul’s support among African-Americans is much higher than what Republicans have received in recent presidential elections. CNN’s 2004 presidential election exit polls show that Democrat John Kerry was preferred over George Bush by 88 percent.

The RealClearPolitics Insider Advantage Poll from early October also indicated that Dr. Paul was the leading Republican candidate among Black voters in key primary state, New Hampshire.

“Dr. Paul is the candidate who brings Americans together,” said Paul campaign manager Lew Moore. “His unifying message of freedom, peace, and prosperity is drawing supporters of all backgrounds back into the Republican party.”

Rasmussen Reports conducted preference polls for Ron Paul between October 12 and 14. Preference polls for Rudy Giuliani were conducted October 8 through 9 and 15 through 16, and for Mitt Romney and John McCain between October 10 and 11 and 17 through 18.

Hmmm....

[#47 posted by x , October 31, 2007 9:37 AM]

"The problem with Ron Paul.."

[#48 posted by Anonymous , October 31, 2007 9:46 AM]

Ron Paul said it best on Leno himself: "I have shortcomings, but the message (of liberty) has no shortcomings."

Is Paul perfect? No. Does he make mistakes? Of course. Who doesn't? Could Paul be corruptible? Possibly. Is it likely at his age and with his track record? No, it's not likely. Nevertheless, it is the message, not the messenger, that is of crucial importance to our nation.

Ron Paul is the only candidate carrying the message of restoring the Constitutional Republic and the rule of law, personal liberty, non-interventionism overseas, and a stable dollar.

The message is kind of hard to argue with.

[#49 posted by mindysan33 , October 31, 2007 1:33 PM]

Tom Cruise is weird. Just weird.

RP said the same things he has been saying...

And the Pistols were boring... oh so boring, I'm so sad to say. Anyone catch the reformed New York Dolls awhile ago on Rollin's show? Much better performance, if you ask me. SP is just out to make a buck, which Lydon's said many a time. At least he's honest about it, unlike all the other bands who've recently reformed... I'm lookin' at you Bauhaus, the Banshee's, and Skinny Puppy!!!

Mindy

[#50 posted by Anonymous , October 31, 2007 1:51 PM]

I'll take a stab at this:

"# Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)"
Read that as voted against taxing citizens to pay for federal funding ... yet allowing private research.

"# Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005) "
See above. The very use of the word "allowing", in this case is basically using a weasel word.

"# Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)"
He will vote against federal involvement in abortion everytime. He is adamant about states decide this for their citizens, since each region feels so differently about it.

I happen to disagree here. Not a deal breaker though. Not with warrantless wiretapping, a war, a collapsing dollar, a failed drug war ... well you get the idea.

For what it is worth, though he says he would not let his feelings interject into his overriding feeling state's rights trumps federal rights here ... he happens to believe "Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" is pretty clear. Right to Life is right there for all to see. Like I said. I wish it wasn't. It is though.

"# Voted YES on restricting bankruptcy rules. (Jan 2004) "
Umm ... hooray.

"# Voted NO on allowing stockholder voting on executive compensation. (Apr 2007)"
I can't say this is altogether bad. Not something I put high on my list. There are pros and cons here, but really ... I think there are bigger issues here. A man just testified to Congress he was placed in Gitmo w/o legal reps or Habeas Corpus.

"# Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels."
We should raise taxes to give Exxon more of our money, so they can give us "alternatives"? Screw that. Some already are.

Besides. This was a giant subsidy to give people that grow corn. It was a boondoggle from the get go. Farm subsidies are killing the farmer. Unless they happen to be one of the 6 large farm conglomerates. Then it helps. :\

"# Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids. (Apr 2003) "
I admit. This is a hugely useful system. I knwo it can help, and I am unsure why he did this. I can only imagine he feels it falls outside of governments scope. At this stage erroring that way is better than they other, restrictive civil rights way.

"# Voted YES on requiring photo ID for voting in federal elections. (Sep 2006)"
Umm ... hooray again. I am as private as anyone who reads boingboing. I think it is OK to have to prove you are not a foreign national to vote in federal elections. This is a very basic authentication measure that makes great security sense.

"# Voted NO on restricting employer interference in union organizing. (Mar 2007)"
I guess you would prefer if your boss can fire you for talking to others at work and organizing to better yourselves. Unions suck. I happen to like free market ideals. I have no choice but to concede people have the right to form collectives and use the leverage they create with them though. Anything else is simply unjust.

"# Voted NO on increasing minimum wage to $7.25. (Jan 2007) "
Good. This is one of the larger finance management by the central bank disasters of the last half century. The barest of research can show you a minimum wage law hurts the lowest income people the most. They are priced out of their skillset, which you have to admit, is basically none/skilless.

"# Voted NO on establishing "network neutrality" (non-tiered Internet). (Jun 2006)"
Along with every engineer who helped to create it, except Vint Cerf.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/18/AR2007011801508.html
http://www.theregister.com/2007/01/18/kahn_net_neutrality_warning/

A great analogy to this is that it is like what the IRS found out charging currency value of the metal in the $50 one ounce gold coins a man paid his employees instead of a seven hundred dollar paycheck. They stamped the things $50, and they need to be careful what they wish for. The next logical step would be you and I paying tax on the value of the paper the greenbacks we get paid instead of the value on the bill.

Same thing here. The IRS learned be careful what you wish for. People pay taxes to subsidize the Internet, but don't own the profits and goods the product produces. I paid taxes on Federal financial aid as well. Do I own the end product the student creates in any way? Why not? I built him. Be careful what you wish for.

That is the root of the argument against the "taxpayer" reasoning IMO.

You simply can't take Cerf's genuine felling on the issue as a certainty. He is on Google's payroll. It seems like you get the general feeling that Google and Microsoft and these other huge companies are supporting this because they benefit the most. Not to help us and because they are altruistic good guys.

[#51 posted by Anonymous , October 31, 2007 7:13 PM]

The Pistols were far from being manufactured. The manufacturing comes from those that say it's manufactured. The Truth always incites thought. A rose is a rose is a rose.

[#52 posted by LibertyVini , October 31, 2007 7:52 PM]

I meant to post in support of both Johnny's and Ron's performance, and Jay's gracious, fair interview. The crap others have posted about Ron above is shameful, discredited smear, and I would think it below the fine people who read boingboing, but I guess the smearbund is working overtime, big surprise to see the man's record so carelessly misrepresented and his mistakes made to hang upon him.

His platform is simple; To end the war, end the empire, and save our cherished liberties and the economy, the federal government needs to be re-restrained by the Constitution, and as much power as possible devolved to the states and ESPECIALLY to the people. It's called de-cent-ral-i-za-tion, exactly like the underlying premise of the in-ter-net, which is why Ron is so pop-u-lar there, Goo-gle it.

As far as his personal opposition to abortion goes, he is an ob-gyn, he comes by it honestly, you can research it. What it means for his policy is that abortion is a matter that is to be handled at the state level, exactly as the involuntary killing of a fetus is.

The Federal government is already quite busy destroying any remaining abortion rights attributed by Roe, getting the issue out of the hands of the federal judiciary is the only way any rights that pertain can be saved.

To those who believe this would result in abortion being outlawed, maybe you have never talked to voters in NY, NJ, MA, CA, OR, WA, or any other 'blue' state - in those states it simply isn't going to happen, period, and if, say Utah outlaws it, it's the duty of the people of that state to make sure it's done in a way that doesn't destroy the rights of the woman (I'm not sure that's possible but they should be allowed to try).

Goddamn it, I didn't mean to go off on that tangent. Screw you haters, the Sex Pistols rocked, you all miss the POINT of punk, and we need Johnny Rotten even more now than we did in 1977. And he gave MAD props to Dr. Paul, apparently he's been active in small-l libertarian circles for some time, the natural home for an anarchist, BTW.

[#53 posted by Abby , November 1, 2007 11:55 AM]

Yeah, they were manufactured. Not Idol-style, but go look up Malcolm McLaren and read up on the band's early history.

I hate the flames that shoot out any time someone brings up possible flaws with their pet idols, but they were what they were. That doesn't mean they were bad, mind. Just that they took advantage of the situation just like any other band.