Removed by request

Due to multiple requests, including the statement of the original author that the article does not belong at IPR, I am deleting the body of the article. I’m leaving this up for now so the comments don’t disappear as well.

-p

42 thoughts on “Removed by request

  1. Gary Chartier

    The C4L shenanigans, the Smith endorsement by Paul senior, and now this. If you ever doubted that immersion in mainstream politics was almost unavoidably corrupting, doubt no more.

  2. Trent Hill

    I won’t have any profanity, even “f-king” in the title.

    Paulie–please change the title, this could easily cost us our Google News listing. In fact, I’d rather you deleted the entire post.

  3. Robert Capozzi

    Hmm, it does have that Team America feel, don’t it?

    Gary, seems to me ALL politics is unavoidably corrupting. Living itself may be corrupting. Live in a cave? Join the Hemlock Society? Or do the best you can, seem to be the choices.

  4. Jill Pyeatt

    I’d started to suspect Rand was a neocon. That certainly was a disturbing commercial.

    Thomas, I don’t care for the word “retarded” either. Can you remove or replace it from the title?

  5. Robert Capozzi

    I don’t care for “retarded” or “evil,” for that matter. Lose both. No need to judge others.

  6. Tom Blanton

    I already questioned the use of “retarded” at Knappster, but didn’t weigh in on “evil.

    I think the question should be:

    Is Rand Paul an asshole or does he have special needs?

    I don’t know the answer, but he weirds me out. The answer may simply be “yes”.

  7. Bruce Cohen

    This is not a news post, as is supposedly required by the IPR policy, but an Editorial, something I have been told I cannot post.

    At least, however, Mister Knapp ought to have the courtesy to have a summation under the video and not just post only that.

    And, what’s wrong with Rand Paul?
    There was nothing he said that’s anti-Libertarian in that ad.

    Strong Military.
    Check
    Protect America against terrorists.
    Check
    Treat POWs like POWs
    Check

    Nothing anti-Libertarian there.

    Listen, if you guys want to have a policy discussion about what the best way to defend America is, well I’m all for it.

    If you disagree with me, or Rand or whoever, great! I’m all for you saying so.

    But to call Rand names like this is just low class and won’t do anyont any good.

    The conversation is over as soon as the first insult flies.

    Of course, I’m getting the feeling that some people don’t want to have a conversation.

    They just want to have an incestuous conversation with only those who agree.

    I’m just sayin!

  8. paulie Post author

    This is not a news post, as is supposedly required by the IPR policy, but an Editorial, something I have been told I cannot post.

    We can and do post editorials by presidential candidates. Knapp is a presidential candidate.

    What we can not do is post our own editorials.

    If you are running for Congress again and want to publish an editorial, ask one of the other IPR writers to publish it.

  9. paulie Post author

    There was nothing he said that’s anti-Libertarian in that ad.

    Strong Military.
    Check
    Protect America against terrorists.
    Check
    Treat POWs like POWs
    Check

    They are not POWs, no war has been declared. The idea that they can’t have civilian trials on US soil does not strike me as libertarian, or even constitutional.

  10. Thomas L. Knapp

    Note well:

    I had nothing to do with the decision to post this article at IPR.

    Someone at IPR apparently considered the post newsworthy. I disagree.

    Because I don’t think that the post belongs at IPR, I won’t be discussing it at IPR.

  11. paulie Post author

    Because I don’t think that the post belongs at IPR, I won’t be discussing it at IPR.

    OK, Trent and Bruce already want it taken down…you do as well, I take it?

    If so, I’ll delete it. Or you can just delete it (Tom or Trent; everyone else please hold off).

  12. Bruce Cohen

    You’re playing semantical games, Paulie.

    Clearly, they are enemy.
    And clearly they are combatants.
    They also don’t qualify for Geneva protections.

    The military can capture people in combat situations outside of a declared wars. It does happen. It can and will.

    People that attack the USA from outside can be treated differently and often should.

    The idea that we treat the undewear bomber the same as a shoplifter, legally speaking, makes no sense.

  13. paulie Post author

    I’ll give this one hour.

    If Tom or Trent don’t take it down in the meantime, and nobody makes a good case that it should stay, the post is coming down.

  14. Bruce Cohen

    I think the commentary about Rand belongs, well in the COMMENTS.

    The news should be in the news section.

    That Rand feels this way is not news to me.
    I’m not surprised. This story is ‘mosquitos bite’.
    Nothing new, unusual or newsworthy.

    I’m all for news being placed up here.

    But let it be news, not editorial, and let it be stated in a gentlemanly fashion, where we don’t call those we might disagree with derogatory terms.

  15. NewFederalist

    *yawn* Let’s not try to win or anything. Take it down, Paulie and give us more crappola about some obscure pervert in California losing his place as master of the star chamber or some such nonsense. That should be good for another 500+ posts!

  16. d.eris

    “The idea that we treat the undewear bomber the same as a shoplifter, legally speaking, makes no sense.”

    Indeed, why are militarized police units thought to be necessary in locales throughout the country to enforce petty drug and anti-theft laws?

  17. Austin Battenberg

    Rand isn’t as good as his father, but I think he would be a valuable ally in the Senate for liberty…considering he will be the most libertarian leaning person in the senate.

    I think the reason why he chose this subject as his first commercial is because that is the issue that Trey Grayson is attacking him on the most, and in order to get the establishment Republicans to back him, he has to sound strong defense, even though on his own website it is clear he is a non-interventionist.

  18. Austin Battenberg

    well, the constitution does say that the main role of the government is defense.

    Granted, the constitution isn’t as libertarian as I’m sure many of us would like, but at least getting back to the constitution would be a great start at restoring our liberties.

    He has said numerous times that he wants to cut defense spending too (something Obama is too scared to do), but would still keep it much higher percentage wise, then other things the government spends money on.

    Rand Paul is no libertarian. But he isn’t a bible thumping social conservative, and he isn’t a war hawk either. He has to posture himself as being strong on terror, but his many speeches and media appearances shows that he is not in favor of either war (Iraq or Afganistan) and wants to bring our foriegn policy to that of non-intervention. I disagree with him when it comes to terrorists and Guantanamo, but he doesn’t support torture or rendition, and he still supports due process for suspected terrorists, he just doesn’t want to be done on American soil (which is silly, but Trey was attacking him on this issue).

    He is a deficit hawk, and will be on the front lines trying to stop such frivilous government waste. He is also a state rights proponent, which isn’t as good as a full libertarian, but localising laws is ALWAYS a step in the right direction, rather then having one bloated federal centralized government dictating to the rest of the country.

    In my opinion, electing Rand Paul to the senate is a good thing….or at very least, not a bad thing.

  19. Austin Battenberg

    To put it another way, Rand has the uncanny ability to bring together anti-war libertarians such as myself (and ron paul supporters), and the pro-defense libertarians such as those who post on this website.

    Maybe if more people in the Libertarian party are able to make this same sort of alliance with both sides of this issue, perhaps we could do better in elections.

  20. Rorschach

    This is a headline from a Presidential candidate?

    Please, pardon my French, but what the FUCK is wrong with Knapp that he thinks he’ll stand a snowball’s chance in snowball hell using the word “retard” like that? What’s next, is he going to call Sotomayor a “spic”?

    I understand the headline has impact and clearly expresses his confusion. I understand the rhetorical effect for which he was striving. I understand that “political correctness” is a bane upon free speech. I don’t care. I don’t give two shits in the deep woods. Free speech has to take a back seat in a candidates mind. Anyone who wants to be effective politically has to know how to appeal to people. Pat Robertson can get away with this shit because he has Jehovah backing him up with Benjamins. The LP has the benefit of neither.

    Yes, we actually have to TRY to get on people’s good sides. Think of every encounter with the public like going out to a nice restaurant with your girlfriend’s parents for the first time. Think of it like you just might want to EVER have a chance of getting her father’s blessing for her hand in marriage. And think of it like he’s Mr. Rogers.

    The LP has suffered for years because of candidates who don’t know good politics. “Don’t use offensive slurs or derogatory terms” is right up there with “Don’t spit on the host of the radio show” and “Don’t threaten people in writing or in front of witnesses.” Knapp may be expressing HIS views, and maybe he really does mean “mentally handicapped” when he says “retarded”. Maybe Tom is like that relative from “another generation” that used terms like “idiot” and “imbecile” in a medical context. But I doubt it. Even if he were, Knapp needs to learn to use the modern, PC words for things like “retards,” “colored folk,” and “faggots”. If this is the kind of empathy and social aptitude we can expect from him, I shudder to think of what sort of headline will arise if Al Sharpton should arouse his ire.

    Knapp is not out there solely for himself. If he thinks he is, he best get disabused of that selfish notion pronto, lest his antics get us on the news for the wrong reasons again.

    Candidates work for the Party. It’s OUR collective ass on the line when he gets on the wire and spouts slurs. The egg gets on OUR face as well.

    This seems to be a huge problem in the Party: We don’t understand how to deal with the public without looking like the monkey exhibit at the zoo.

    Paulie, it behooves you, as it behooves the entire Party, to start policing our candidates and holding them to a higher standard of behavior and speech. In the midst of this diatribe, I respectfully request you to either remove this article, or forward it to a major liberal news organization so that Knapp can learn a hard lesson about public relations.

    Seriously, Mr. Knapp: Are you fucking retarded?

  21. Thomas L. Knapp

    Paulie,

    For the record, no, I wasn’t asking for it to be taken down. I was just offering my opinion as to whether or not it was newsworthy, and stating my intention not to discuss it here since I don’t think that it is.

  22. LibertarianGirl

    TK , I ashamed you used that word , Im no PCer but it is offensive to some and as a Presidential candidate , you should really choose your words carefully . Besides theres no reason to insult the mentally challenged by putting a neocon amongst them:)

  23. Dr. Evil

    Rand Paul ahead in the polls for US Senate, and the Saints grabbing a lead early in the second half of the Superbowl.

    These things don’t make Dr. Evil happy.

  24. Athletic Supporter

    I get excited by watching men playing with balls. It’s endlessly fascinating.

  25. Thomas L. Knapp

    LibertarianGirl,

    Is there some part of “I’m not going to discuss it here at IPR” that you didn’t understand?

    There are at least two false assumptions in your latest comment. I’d be happy to address one of them somewhere other than here. The other one is going to have to wait.

  26. Michael H. Wilson

    Fill in the blank quiz.

    “The recent decision will retard the development of a new generation of…”

  27. LibertarianGirl

    TK_Is there some part of “I’m not going to discuss it here at IPR” that you didn’t understand?

    me_ no I understood , I was ruffling your feathers to get you respond when you said you wouldnt:)

    and I was just kidding…lol

  28. war supporter

    I get excited by watching men playing with balls. It’s endlessly fascinating.

    Yeah, but I get even more excited by watching men with big guns blowing each other up (and down, and sideways). What could be more manly?

  29. Trent Hill

    “This is not a news post, as is supposedly required by the IPR policy, but an Editorial, something I have been told I cannot post.

    At least, however, Mister Knapp ought to have the courtesy to have a summation under the video and not just post only that.”

    Bruce–Paulie was posting the editorial of a presidential candidate, so you’re quite wrong about that.

    Paulie–go ahead and pull this post. I get what you were doing, but I don’t want it on IPR because using profanity in titles could cost us our Google News listing, not to mention i’m just personally not ok with it (not that I’m not a cusser, it just doesn’t meet my standards for journalism–even quoting someone else). Thanks Paulie.

    As for all the other stuff–I’m a fan of Rand’s, I disagree with this commercial, but I think Rand is really just posturing more than anything.

  30. Andy

    Bruce Cohen said:

    “Clearly, they are enemy.”

    Democrats and Republicans are my enemies. Can we put them in prison?

  31. Andy

    Trent Hill said:

    “As for all the other stuff–I’m a fan of Rand’s, I disagree with this commercial, but I think Rand is really just posturing more than anything.”

    I agree with Trent. I don’t care for this commercial either, but I think that Rand is just posturing to get votes from run-of-the-mill Republicans. Rand is good on the overwellming majority of issues and actually stands a chance of getting elected. I don’t agree with him here but this is not enough to be a deal breaker.

  32. Trent Hill

    Oh, sorry, I see. You can pull the comments/thread if you wish, but I see no harm in them staying.

    Andy–I like your basic ideal. Also, let’s remember that the only reason Rand put this commercial out was because the Grayson campaign has been hammering him, hard, on the issue because of comments he made in recent months in which he took the opposite opinion (that of his father). I suspect this is his actual opinion but that he is posturing for votes here. He’s willing to go on the record the other way on this issue because it is a.) An issue which is not terribly important to liberty, in his estimation (or mine). b.) An issue which energizes the base and could cost him a lot in the primary and c.) It is a temporary issue which will disappear soon enough.

    All told–Rand Paul is hard-libertarian on virtually every issue. Even if he were completely wrong on the War in Af and the Military Tribunals–he’d be by far the best US Senator in the last 75 years. He’s got my vote, my money, and my hope.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *