<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.4" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Falsehoods</title>
	<link>http://larison.org/2007/11/28/falsehoods/</link>
	<description>n. the principle of good order "Observe the strange inversion of all order and sense! Dignity debased; how vilely is the function of a consul prostituted!" ~The Craftsman</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 01:12:36 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: Daniel Larison</title>
		<link>http://larison.org/2007/11/28/falsehoods/#comment-8227</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Nov 2007 22:59:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://larison.org/2007/11/28/falsehoods/#comment-8227</guid>
					<description>Thanks for your comments.  I agree with your assessment, Terry.  His post was very disappointing.  It is pretty clearly antipathy to Paul that's really motivating this.  This phoney charge about my "endorsement" of Esphigmenou is thrown in for effect.  The insult directed at Patriarch Alexei in his response tells you all you need to know.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for your comments.  I agree with your assessment, Terry.  His post was very disappointing.  It is pretty clearly antipathy to Paul that&#8217;s really motivating this.  This phoney charge about my &#8220;endorsement&#8221; of Esphigmenou is thrown in for effect.  The insult directed at Patriarch Alexei in his response tells you all you need to know.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: tcowan</title>
		<link>http://larison.org/2007/11/28/falsehoods/#comment-8226</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Nov 2007 22:47:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://larison.org/2007/11/28/falsehoods/#comment-8226</guid>
					<description>Trevino's post is a real cheap shot.  I am amazed at the vitriol and nonsense being directed at Ron Paul supporters.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Trevino&#8217;s post is a real cheap shot.  I am amazed at the vitriol and nonsense being directed at Ron Paul supporters.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Zarathustra</title>
		<link>http://larison.org/2007/11/28/falsehoods/#comment-8223</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Nov 2007 11:07:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://larison.org/2007/11/28/falsehoods/#comment-8223</guid>
					<description>&lt;em&gt;Mr. Trevino’s objections to my and others’ support for Ron Paul are no more credible.  If there are cases where Ron Paul’s constitutional views are not perfect, his willingness to adhere to the Constitution according to strict constructionist and originalist interpretations–the interpretations conservatives are supposed to respect and follow–is so much greater than that of his rivals that it seems absurd that someone could find fault with him for lacking in fidelity to the Constitution.  Which candidate can Trevino find who is more faithful to more provisions of the Constitution?  Of course, there is none.  It is not as if Trevino has found himself a more faithful constitutionalist whom he can support–his complaints against Paul on this score are basically groundless.&lt;/em&gt;

I would suspect that Congressman Paul's staunch opposition to amnesty for illegals and his support for the Mexican border fence are the sources for much of the hostility from Josh Trevino.

All around, it's an extremely disappointing post from a usually quite intelligent individual. One thing in it in particular was just silly; his accusation that Paul's opposition to income taxation is "hostility" to the Sixteenth Amendment. The Sixteenth Amendment does not &lt;em&gt;necessitate&lt;/em&gt; a federal tax on income but rather it simply empowers the state to do so if it so pleases. The absence of a federal income tax would not violate the amendment in any way, so it's a wide stretch at best to call Paul's position "hostility."

As for his accusation that the opponents of the Kosovo debacle were cheerleaders for Milosevic, the same "logic" could be redirected against him in a farily straightforward fashion. His support for the illegal war was an "abdication of moral sense on behalf" of KLA paramiliants who've burned scores of churches and monasteries and thousands of Serb and Roma homes, and on behalf of NATO bombers who murdered thousands of civilians in Belgrade in an air war that NATO itself admits did almost nothing to degrade the combat capabilities of the Yugoslav military.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em>Mr. Trevino’s objections to my and others’ support for Ron Paul are no more credible.  If there are cases where Ron Paul’s constitutional views are not perfect, his willingness to adhere to the Constitution according to strict constructionist and originalist interpretations–the interpretations conservatives are supposed to respect and follow–is so much greater than that of his rivals that it seems absurd that someone could find fault with him for lacking in fidelity to the Constitution.  Which candidate can Trevino find who is more faithful to more provisions of the Constitution?  Of course, there is none.  It is not as if Trevino has found himself a more faithful constitutionalist whom he can support–his complaints against Paul on this score are basically groundless.</em></p>
<p>I would suspect that Congressman Paul&#8217;s staunch opposition to amnesty for illegals and his support for the Mexican border fence are the sources for much of the hostility from Josh Trevino.</p>
<p>All around, it&#8217;s an extremely disappointing post from a usually quite intelligent individual. One thing in it in particular was just silly; his accusation that Paul&#8217;s opposition to income taxation is &#8220;hostility&#8221; to the Sixteenth Amendment. The Sixteenth Amendment does not <em>necessitate</em> a federal tax on income but rather it simply empowers the state to do so if it so pleases. The absence of a federal income tax would not violate the amendment in any way, so it&#8217;s a wide stretch at best to call Paul&#8217;s position &#8220;hostility.&#8221;</p>
<p>As for his accusation that the opponents of the Kosovo debacle were cheerleaders for Milosevic, the same &#8220;logic&#8221; could be redirected against him in a farily straightforward fashion. His support for the illegal war was an &#8220;abdication of moral sense on behalf&#8221; of KLA paramiliants who&#8217;ve burned scores of churches and monasteries and thousands of Serb and Roma homes, and on behalf of NATO bombers who murdered thousands of civilians in Belgrade in an air war that NATO itself admits did almost nothing to degrade the combat capabilities of the Yugoslav military.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
