The Coming aPaulcalypse
David Weigel | August 30, 2008, 11:36am
Suzanne Gamboa
previews the Ron Paul Rally for the Republic with details on how Paul will be treated at the RNC (guess) and how Paul diehards are getting to the event.
Paul has no speaking role at the GOP convention. He said his staff made overtures to the party, but nothing came of its efforts.
Republican Party spokeswoman Joanna Burgos said she had to research whether Paul was invited to speak when asked about a convention role for Paul.
"Our focus is really on this side of the river," Burgos said. "We think there's enough excitement and energy on this side." McCain's campaign spokesman did not return a phone message.
Rally attendees can pay extra to attend an electoral boot camp. To save money, some are bunking outside the city.
Paul backers who aren't staying at the Minneapolis hotel or a budget motel planned to bunk in group cabins at Camp Ihduhapi on Lake Independence, park RVs or pitch tents at campgrounds or head to a Goodhue, Minn., dairy farm for Ronstock '08, an imitation of the 1960s Woodstock counterculture festival. Organizers there say a neighbor of the farm's owner is donating a cow to feed the flock.
Here's some of the combative final promotional material for the event (ostensibly written by the man, the doctor, the rEVOLutionary himself):
The situation our country faces is as dangerous as ever. A certain Democratic senator, recently passed over for the Republican vice-presidential nod, is likely to be our next secretary of state. Both major parties remain committed to militarism and reckless spending - and inflationism to fund it all.
At their convention the Democrats uttered barely a peep about the surveillance state, the police state, and the Bush administration's disastrous foreign policy. Needless to say, there was not a word about the Fed and what it's done to our economy. We can only imagine what the GOP Convention will have in store for us.
The Rally for the Republic is the first step in alerting our countrymen to these dangers, and holding out the message of freedom as the only remedy. We must resist the false choices the two major parties are giving us.
Here's the schedule:
12:30 - Intro: Tucker Carlson
12:40 - National Anthem: Matt Colvin
12:50 - Invocation: Barb Davis White
12:55 - Howard Phillips
1:10 - Doug Wead
1:30 - Tom Woods
1:50 - Grover Norquist
2:10 - Lew Rockwell
2:30 - Bill Kauffman
2:50 - Special Guest
3:10 - Bruce Fein
3:35 - Gov. Jesse Ventura
4:05 - John Tate‚ Campaign for Liberty Presentation
4:25 - Gov. Gary Johnson
5:00 - Aimee Allen
6:00 - Break
7:00 - Intro: Barry Goldwater Jr.
7:05 - Ron Paul
8:05 - Sara Evans
9:30 - End of Program
9:30 - Jimmie Vaughan After Party
Yes, Grover Norquist will share a green room with Lew Rockwell. The balance between the more nationalist, paleo Paul backers (Phillips, Woods) and the more media-friendly ones (Ventura, Johnson) is more or less 50-50. I'm not sure what I think about a whole hour of Aimee Allen. Also: If I read this correctly, Paul is speaking the same time that Rudy "Ask Me How Many Delegates I Won!" Giuliani will be grunting about 9/11 at the Xcel Center.
just another | September 1, 2008, 5:09am | #
uh, I know the difference, idiot. I was correcting your improper use of terms.
I'm no more in the mood to argue science with someone as intellectually deficient as yourself than I would be to wrestle with a pig.
Uh, apparently you don't know. A forensic pathologist is someone who deals with human
remains to identify the cause of death and to determine that they are in fact human.
Naturally he is also called upon to determine what
sort of human the remains
are from. Yes, there is such a discipline as forensic "anthropology" and yes, that,
too, deals with the study of skeletal remains, although that field is more properly known as forensic osteology, I believe. The term anthropologist is more often used to refer to the broader field of anthropology, which largely is one of the social sciences.
But rather than quibble over terminology, why don't you address the point that I made above? Namely that there
is enough "biological" or "physiological"
difference among the "races" (your word) to determine from morbid remains (skeletal) to which race an individual belonged. Contrary to what you aver, I'd say that constitutes "significance."
But of course, you'd rather not address the issue, because you aren't "in the mood."
You'd much rather make general statements and hope like hell that no one calls you
on them. Or if someone does, you just hurl a few insults and hope no one notices
that you skinned out of it all. Yet you call me intellectually deficient? Well I guess I wouldn't want to argue science either,
if I couldn't offer anything more substantive than personal attacks. Hope you are
better at wrestling pigs.
BTW, the word "idiot" by which you addressed me? I believe that's a term from one
of those "outdated classification systems" you mentioned - psychologists no longer use that word.
I don't think your intellectual dishonesty, personal dishonor, and general disrespect
merit any further response from me - except maybe just to simply say "fuck you."
