First, Sailer's post, to put things in context. In summary, the New York Times decided to dust off an old hatchet job on Ron Paul from The New Republic, now that he presents a clear and present danger of winning the Iowa primary.
The comments thread is pretty solid paleocon/libertarian, but it's always interesting to see what brings out the rabble on iSteve.
Aaron in Israel says,
Come on, Mr. Sailer. We all know that the word "racist" is wildly overused. Still, there is such a thing as racism (or bigotry), and the newsletters are racist (or bigoted). "The blacks," come on.
Even in the early 1990s it was known that AIDS wasn't transmitted by saliva. The author probably knew that, but lied anyway.
There's a huge difference between pandering to "rednecks" (Murray Rothbard's word) who are bigots, and using bigotry to pander to rednecks. Especially for someone who wants to be president, i.e., president of all citizens - blacks, white rednecks, etc.
Thank you, citizen of a Jewish supremacist nation-state for telling us how to run our country. How does one deal with "the blacks," do tell?
This one's my personal favorite:
The opposition to Ron Paul is not all about his views on the Middle East. He wants to abolish the Federal Reserve system and go back on the gold standard. There is no significant body of economists who think that is a good idea; it was from conservative economist Milton Friedman's research that the world learned monetary theory, and how a properly functioning central bank can avoid both depressions and periods of runaway inflation. We have avoided both for the past 30 years, since Paul Volcker killed double digit inflation during 1979-81. As a fixed income hedge fund research director, I cannot imagine the global bond markets functioning properly without a central banking system in the USA. From my perspective, Paul wants us to unlearn everything we have learned over the past 75 years about making capitalist economies function effectively.
It's unanimous: the geniuses who engineered the greatest episode of capital destruction and rent-seeking in history believe that Ron Paul would be a disaster.
Finally, the sodomites weigh in.
"When everybody knows (or at least has been told, over and over) that AIDS can be transmitted by heterosexual sex as easily as by homosexual practices."
Because it does, ignoramus. Actually, the mucous linning of the inner vulva is MORE susceptible to being penetrated by the HIV virus then the linning of the anus. The reason why there is less contamination in heterosexual intercourse is because straight couples usually wear prophylactics whilst gay men usually don't.
And this is none of your damn business! Gay men can have as much sex as they want with as many partners as they want, and you don't get to give your opinion on it.
Sailer is one cynical, callous liar. He wants to restrict the freedom of homosexual men because he deems them inferior to heterosexuals, but he pretends to want to restrict it because he "cares" about them and don't want them to die to AIDS. Yeah, right...the guy is a conservative, pro-traditional family, anti-gay marriage and we are supposed to believe he wants to restricts the freedom of gays because he doesen't want them to catch AIDS. Yeah, right...Sailer would probably love if all gays would disappear from off the face of the Earth, so don't pretend like you care about them.
Clearly, if Ron Paul is elected President, a deviant, childless, unhygienic sector constituting a full two to five percent of the population would disappear from off the face of the Earth. My only question is, can we clone the guy?