My apologies for reopening old wounds, but if you want to know what Paul really thinks, just take a look at his newsletters.
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
My apologies for reopening old wounds, but if you want to know what Paul really thinks, just take a look at his newsletters.
“Ron Paul didn’t write those, the guy he hired did without his knowledge” apologists in 3…2…1…
PZ, shhh.
Wait until he gathers real momentum and begins to swing the GOP center.
You’re right. I think Ron Paul is bad.
He’d be the worst president we’ve ever had.
His racism sucks,
but he brings in the bucks
even though he’s an insufferable cad.
But people are easily swayed.
They buy the foundation he’s laid.
They’d get along with you,
only until they knew
You were an atheist, Jew, or gay.
It’s good to see this out in the press.
Maybe we can avoid a big mess.
It’d be refreshing to see
someone run rationally
but the chances are slim, I confess.
When are you going to challenge the fact that all the candidates you haven’t challenged support the most oppressive form of racism there is? Our fruitless war on drugs.
Yeah. Lets be quiet and hope he wins the nomination and then clobber him with these afterwards.
“ronpaulforums.com” is apparently going berzerk, with people claiming these were obviously forgeries by the evil MSM to discredit Paul, and a particularly tortuous line of reasoning that argues that the racist language in some of the articles proves that Paul didn’t write them because racists are always very careful to hide their racism. Or something.
Here’s a kooky little number that’s indisuputably Paul. Funny thing is I remember Fox Mulder going off on this on the X-Files. Wonder if the writers got his newsletter?
I propose a contest of dueling poems between Rich Stage and Cuttlefish.
Would that poem be considered in limeric form? There’s not a single profanity! I thought that was a violation of the official Limeric Rules.
Thanks. It’s nice to get this all on one easy to reference page for the morons who blizzarded this site earlier. Of course, they’ll take the same line as the apologists in the the article.
Again and again I’ve quoted this misogynist troglodyte and again and again his sycophantic apologists have lied, obfuscated, and flat out denied that the words coming DIRECTLY out of this aberration’s mouth were his own.
At best, if these newsletters were put out UNDER HIS NAME and he DID NOT KNOW what they said, he demonstrates a level of incompetence no sane citizen wants in the White House.
At worst, if these newsletters were put out UNDER HIS NAME and he DID KNOW what they said, he needs to be institutionalized, NOW.
And so does EVERY ONE of his stupid, idiotic, and sadly atavistic supporters. A more disgusting bunch of ill-informed, sterilization-needing, shit-for-brains pigs outside of the Ditto-heads doesn’t exist.
But, just like evolution (which Paul again and again and again DENIES) they will simply ignore it and barge back here with more stupidity.
The sad thing is, there are some issues where I agree with Ron Paul: foreign policy, smaller government, less governmental involvement in personal matters.
Too bad he’s a bat-shit crazy, racist, religious conservative who believes that the separation of church and state is wrong.
That’s not entirely correct Schmeer (#7).
Rich used “laid” in the second verse in a double entendre. ;)
That would be horribly, horribly bad.
What I see happening is that, whoever gets the Republican nomination, they will get the misogynist/racist vote. This could lead to Very Bad Things©.
Richardson would have had my vote, because I can’t trust Hillary, and Obama lacks experience, but at this point I’m willing to vote for Kucinich to keep any of the Republican front runners out of office.
#4: single issues do not a candidate make. while the WOD is a huge screw-job, supporting a fucking whacko like Ron Paul is just idiocy.
True, but I am following a ruling that has a more profound and immediate effect on my life and limericks:
I can’t write anything that I wouldn’t let my daughter read.
Thus spaketh my wife, and so mote it be. For ever and ever. Ramen.
I would gladly trade a repudiated racist past for an end to the ongoing bloodbath in Iraq, no war with Iran, an end to our ridiculous war on drugs, restoration of our constitution, no more warrantless spying on Americans, no more standing armies on foreign soil, no more….
You get the idea. Show me the perfect candidate and I will then confirm the existence of a god and heaven.
There isn’t a democrat running I wouldn’t vote for to beat any of those republican clowns.
I haven’t ever had a reason to vote for a republican. I doubt I ever will.
I realize this is slightly off-topic, but:
JimBob @#4:
“When are you going to challenge the fact that all the candidates you haven’t challenged support the most oppressive form of racism there is? Our fruitless war on drugs.”
Whatever the war on drugs may be, it is definitely not the most oppressive form of racism there is. As a counterexample, consider the many genocides are frequently perpetrated around the world. Perhaps you mean “…form of racism directly sponsored by the US government”? That would be a less unreasonable claim.
I feel better already.
Stinking autocorrect in MS Word caused a lack of red squiggly line to lead me to believe I had it spelled correctly. I’m so ashamed.
Arguing with Paul-bots, like the Borg, is fruitless. Set phasers on kill, Mr. Data:
http://ronpaulsurvivalreport.blogspot.com/2007/12/faq-ron-paul-and-his-racist-newsletter.html
tballou, Ron Paul also stands for the rollback of right-to-privacy jurisprudence, on a state-by-state level. That means the landmark decisions: Griswold, which restored the right of all women — in Connecticut and in every state — unfettered access to birth control, Loving, which restored the right of all people of color — in Virginia and in every state — to marry whoever [of the opposite sex] they wanted regardless of skin color, Roe, and Lawrence which restored the right of all consenting adults — in Texas and in every state — the freedom to insert or receive a penis in any bodily orifice they desired.
Iraq will wind down as it will. The great bulk of the damage has already been done, and the next president will play Nixon’s role in the tragedy.
The warrantless spying problem, as with nearly all problems these days, is a Republican issue. Don’t vote Republican, problem solved (eventually).
The previous Democrat presidents have shown good judgement in limiting the unnecesary growth of the military. We will always have a “strong military” because it is a jobs program and the American people are too stupid not to see the sham involved unless transfer tubes are coming back to Dover by the hundreds.
Similarly, most voters in this country are perfectly happy with the war on drugs. They see the damage it causes to their loved ones, and want the Nanny State to do something about it, even if it is unconstitutional.
I understand these subtle realities are too “Gray area” for a Paultard to grasp, but, at any rate, good luck with your quest for libertopia in government. Hopefully you’ll find a new libertarian hero without such clay feet next time.
We’re faced with two unpleasant choices: Either he wrote them, or he let others write articles in his name in his newsletter, without taking the care to even read what his ghost writers had to say. I’m inclined to believe the latter- he doesn’t seem like a bigot.
Ending the war in Iraq, ending the war on drugs and ending the death penalty seem like positions of someone who wants to improve the conditions of minorities in this country.
It’s still a great pity to me that he’s such a nut on most other issues.
he doesn’t seem like a bigot.
he has some nasty, nasty quotes from the early 90s, in reference to the LA riots. He’s of the same mold of Trent Lott and Jesse Helms — “states rights” so we Southerners can re-order our society the way we had it, essentially. The rest is pandering to the Paultards.
12 & 16. I correct myself. The War on Drugs is the most oppressive form of racism in the United States. If we are debating severity and then you are with my point. I’m not defending Paul I’m addressing the shallow way PZ is addressing the issue of racism. Just like the recent fluff over comments an announcer made concerning Tiger Woods we in this country get all high and mighty preaching to the choir about some pitiful little words while ignoring the issue.
Complaining about this candidate’s silly stereotyping but ignoring how all the candidates support ruining people’s lives in the war on drugs is to swat a fly and pay no attention to the enormous pile of shit that attracts them.
Edwards, Obama or Clinton either one will work for me.
It may be shortsighted of me, but the two main things I want from a president-elect is that he or she
1) Get us out of Iraq instantly, and
2) Vigorously investigate and prosecute this lying, vicious, arrogant, lawless, torturing, treasonously unAmerican nest of snakes in the White House and the GOP.
Government is really a fiction, when you think about it. It works only if the people governed believe that it works. I don’t believe the confidence, the belief, can survive the Bushistas. Actually, I think confidence in American government, both here and abroad, is dead already. The one thing that can revive it, imho, will be these prosecutions.
I still say Bush should end up running a tire store in Crawford, Texas. That might be barely within his mental capacity.
And if Rush Limbaugh just happened to end up in prison for his “alleged” drug crimes, they could make it into a sitcom (I suggest calling it “Rush to Judgment”) and I’d watch the entire first season.
Thanks again for helping to spread this article, PZ. It’s good for people to know that their deified “FOUNDING FATHER” in the flesh is a disturbed man who keeps disturbing company.
His cowardly “i already told you i ‘took responsibility’ for this, i don’t have to actually do anything to do so, and i wish you all would just shut up about my signatures, my articles, my paycheck, and my friends that i still employ in my campaign” rebuttal is telling.
jimbob, I think the war on drugs is a great idea. Granted, we’re prosecuting it wrong, but I don’t want to live in a nation of potheads and crank addicts, TYVM.
But the root cause of the drug problem is lack of equality of opportunity. The libertopian Policy Closet is fucking barren about how to address this fundamental issue. Not that the Democrat’s historical solutions have been any great shakes, but as a left libertarian I hold that redistribution and reinivestment in the productive capacity of every American — world-class education for everyone, regardless of ability to pay or skill level, world-class health care, world-class public transportation.
The libertopian policy solution is to stop taxing everyone and let the free market work its magic. That was bullshit in the 18th century and it’s bullshit now. Europe has the social-democratic model we can learn from, should we, by some miracle, raise our collective IQ above room temperature.
“The War on Drugs is the most oppressive form of racism in the United States. If we are debating severity and then you are with my point. I’m not defending Paul I’m addressing the shallow way PZ is addressing the issue of racism.”
Funny, you sound just like a Paultard, they love to claim that finding Paul personally revolting means that you hate liberty, are pro Giuliani, want the War on Drugs, and that you can’t possibly believe that one could agree with some of Paul’s ideas (such as ending the War on Drugs) and still find him a terrible little bunker-dwelling Mr. Magoo of a supremacist.
[quote]restoration of our constitution[/quote]
Yes, but most people would like to restore the constitution 0f 1999. Ron Paul would like to restore the constitution of 1799.
Yeah, because a racist president is no big deal if everyone can smoke as much pot as they want right dude?
Pass the bong.
I think I said the exact same thing to this moron here in town just yesterday.
“Yeah, because a racist president is no big deal if everyone can smoke as much pot as they want right dude?
Pass the bong.”
It’ll be easier to stomach the Creationism in public schools Ron Paul endorses, seeing as his (AND THE ONLY!!!#@) interpretation of the Constitution is that the separation of Church and State only means that we can’t have an official government religion, but we can stuff our state and federal government with as much Christ as it can hold.
Do you think they all run around with shaved heads or wear white robes? Most bigots are far to clever to operate in the open like that anymore.
I judge Paul, not only by what he wrote, but the context of his life. Having seen his deliberate associations in the past with militia and extremist (frequently racist) groups like the CCC and John Birch society I feel no need to turn off my rational judgments. Having read his unsoliticited racist opinions on things for which he didn’t need to give opinions, and the deliberating passing on phony stereotypes like “95% of black men in Washington are criminals” I’m of the opposite view.
Those racist comments in his newsletter were exactly what I’d expect from a closet racist and someone who is willing to speak to closeted racists. To speak at John Birch and CCC events. To deliberately pass along phony racial stereotypes (the criminality issue).
I’m sorry. He may not be running around yelling Nigger. But his was no less racist than O’Rielly’s “innocuous” account of eating at a black restaurant and being “surprised” that blacks act like whites instead of yelling “Where’s my ice tea motherfucker” and that sort of crap.
#26. You really think the war on drugs is a great idea. Did you miss the whole prohibition era and how it was a miserable failure? Do you think that we should also ban Alcohol and Tobacco?
We have a nation full of potheads and crankheads. Nearly everyone who wants to use these things is doing so already. We only create a market for the bad crimes associated with the business transactions of these products by making it a criminal act to put crap into your body. The war on drugs is indefensible.
Racism is indefensible. Your pet issues doesn’t give him a free pass.
Your repeating it over and over, got boring quick.
Move on. Ron Paul will never be anything more than a footnote. He’s a fucking douche bag.
I think the war on drugs is a great idea. Granted, we’re prosecuting it wrong, but I don’t want to live in a nation of potheads and crank addicts, TYVM.
And I don’t want to live in a nation of pathetic sheep. But I’m stuck with you and you’re stuck with me asshole.
We WANT Ron Paul to get more attention you moronic fucks. If the ideas he espouses that AREN’T batshit crazy get traction then the candidates who aren’t flaming fucktards will be less scared to embrace things like an INSTANT end to the war in Iraq, drug decriminalization and the dismantling of our budding police state.
But hey, if living in a fascist state is worth it so you won’t have to deal with people who aren’t like you then go ahead and make sure the Repubs nominate someone who will make Hillery and co’s police-state garbage more palatable. Because, quite frankly, if you think any of the leading Dem candidates will end this war ASAP or do one god damned thing to stop the further erosion of our nation into a corporate police state then you are dumber than a sack full of fucking hammers.
There’s a blog that claims his “aide” was Lew Rockwell. And that it was Lew, Paul and Burt Blumert who wrote the letters. Scroll down to the “Ron Paul debacle exposes the racist underbelly in the Rockwellian camp” post from 1/9.
http://rightwatch.tblog.com/
The reason he’s ignored is because he’s batshit crazy. Keep dreaming.
#26 “Europe has the social-democratic model we can learn from, should we, by some miracle, raise our collective IQ above room temperature.”
UK living standards outstrip US for first time in over a century
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article3137506.ece
Nothing of which makes Ron Paul palatable or makes the “War on Drugs” a defacto form of racism. Racism has many definitions, the most common and widely accepted being the belief that human beings are divided into more than one race, with members of some races being intrinsically superior or inferior to members of other races.
Bigotry is not racism. For example, you can hate blacks, Chinese, Japanese, etc. but not feel that they’re inferior. My mother is, when it comes to Asians, a classic bigot. She picked that up from the WWII propaganda, plus long-term anti-Asian bigotry, that floated around California when she was a child and, to my shame, is still with her today. She taught me better, ironically, and we’ve actually had unpleasant words over it. But, in no way, shape or form does she feel that Asians are “inferior.” She just doesn’t like them because that was how California was during the 1930’s through 1950’s.
Racism is not bigotry. You can believe your race is genetically superior, but not actually hate the “inferior races.” I know a person whose best friend is a black man. Yet this person (who is white) believes that the black ‘race’ is inferior. But since he associates with people on an individual basis, he can live with this inherent contradiction and not have his head explode.
Heck, my best friend is a black man and he believes that blacks are genetically superior to whites, hence that’s why sports is dominated by blacks. I laugh at him and call him “Victor Oreo” because he’s ‘black on the outside and white inside.’
The sad fact is that Racism and Bigotry often live together more than they don’t. But they are not, by necessity, the same. And while not everyone has my life experiences to draw upon to get to this particular conclusion, I think just going beyond a cursory and reflexive understanding of racism and bigotry can lead to understand these complex, and frequently over-lapping, issues.
Ah. How to win friends and influence people. You should write a book. :snicker:
I don’t care much if …
a 70 year old grandfather living in some village in the midwest has an understanding of this world full of racist prejudices,
but I do get a “bit” worried if …
he becomes the most powerful man in the world.
I want Ron Paul to keep showing up in Republican debates, if only because the presence of someone who doesn’t buy into the “global policeman” groupthink makes it easier to see it for the load of garbage it really is. I would not, however, vote for him for president.
I think my friend’s wife has a drawer full of fucking hammers.
Is it wrong of me to have gotten a negative opinion of someone before I even knew of his personal views solely because every single one of his supporters comes across as an unhinged rabid lunatic worshipful fanatic?
This is the liberterian ethos
From the Wild Angeles movie(1966 Aip Roger Corman Dir)
Peter Fonda in response to the cleric
“We Wanna Get Loaded Man”
This is the liberterian ethos
From the Wild Angeles movie(1966 Aip Roger Corman Dir)
Peter Fonda in response to the cleric
“We Wanna Get Loaded Man”
I wouldn’t mind getting loaded, but I’m no libertarian. I’m a liberal all the way.
so once ron paul becomes president he’s going to let the south secede? think he’ll let minnesota join canada?
Please do not encourage him.
Signed, Teenage Lobotomys Doctor
Napa state Mental Hospital.
Ron Paul rebutted all this on CNN. PZ myers is just a fraud whos biggest accomplishment is having a popular blog so he thinks hes god. I hope you idiots enjoy ww111 with Iran which is what youll get with hillary/guliani
TROY – I just don’t accept that Paul would support the rollbacks in privacy jurisprudence you cited. He may not agree they are federal issues, but privacy is a fundamental libertarian value, and in any event this would require Supreme Court or Congressional action. I would think a soon to be Democrat Congress would hold firm here.
Iraq will not wind down as long as we are there. There is plenty of opportunity for it to get much worse and our presence there only aggravates the situation. And I dont trust Clinton or Obama to get us out any time soon.
The warrantless spying problem has been facilitated if not approved by far too many Democrats, as have many of the other Bush abuses, Iraq being the top of that list. I want to hear the Dems say no more, but I dont think they have yet.
“limiting the unnecesary growth of the military” is not much of an accomplishment. Why must we be satisfied with that very meager accomplishment? Lets defend the US and let the rest of the increasingly prosperous and capable world handle their own defense. Besides, the main threat to the rest of the world right now is us!
Being perfectly happy with the war on drugs is also not much to be proud of. Why must we waste billions and all the human capital?
And thanks for the gratuitous insult. I will continue my quest for Liberty, standing on the shoulders of the giants who wrote and approved our constitution!
#48 Now you done it Lobotommys gettin loaded
playin Davie Allen and The Arrows “Blues Theme”
where’s the Loser and Nancy Sintra?
signed,Teenage Lobotomys docter
Ron Paul didn’t write those!
Anyway, he just thinks racism should be delegated to the states, so he won’t institutionalize racism anyway!
Also, Congress will keep his racism in check!
And at least he’s honest about his racism unlike all the other politicians!
Taking away someone’s right to racism is coercion!
signed,
A Ron Paul Apologist
47#
Moses: If he wrote those newsletters then he is a racist. I simply don’t know enough in this instance to judge if the ugly accusations against him are true. I can say that I haven’t detected any bigotry in the few speeches I’ve heard from him.
We do know for a fact that he’s not a believer in evolution.
Say what you will, it’s just nice to see some rethugs that aren’t all cast form the same Reagan-Bush-Reagan mould. With any luck, between Ron Paul and Huckabee they will tear the GOP apart, leaching out the kneejerk libertarian blind neoliberal capitalist fucktards on the one hand into donating all their money and votes to Ron Paul (hey, if he’s such a stand up for yourself libertarian, why is he taking cash handouts?), while on the other the whacko fundie babble thumpers jump ship over to their new Huckster daddy figure du jour, leaving the frothing at the mouth chickernshit chickenhawk Guiliani/McCain war mongers without enough votes from the testosterone block to drive your entire political landscape a bit to the left. The only one in the whole sad and sorry race that doesn’t seem like a cynical delusional corporate whore rich kid asswipe is Kucinich (so what if he saw a UFO? Bush talks to Jebus and Mitt Romney wears magic underpants), and he doesn’t have a hope in hell for that reason. Since when do you allow TV stations to pick and choose your political candidates? What is wrong with you down there?
“I hope you idiots enjoy ww111 with Iran which is what youll get with hillary/guliani”
I wasn’t aware that there were 110 World Wars in history. But rest assured that none of us would vote a Hillary/Giuliani ticket, unless the opponent was, say, Huckabee/Brownback.
Or Ron Paul. *snicker*
Not really.
I’ve always been socially liberal, fiscally conservative. I like a lot of Paul’s message, along with the other candidates. I also don’t like a lot of what I see/hear from all of them.
The thing is he’s the only one standing up there explaining to me why he shouldn’t have all this power. This is America. The man can believe what he wants, that’s his right. I just don’t understand this notion that we all have to think exactly the same on all the issues, or else the world will end. Huckabee, I believe, would force his opinions on me in the form of law, which is why I would never vote for him. By comparison Paul spends all his time explaining to me all the reasons he should not be allowed to do this.
Ok, so he’s a bit weird when it comes to evolution. I’m not sure how a man makes it that far in the medical field without getting this concept, but that doesn’t make him evil. It’s just a different view than I have (mine based on reality, his on who-knows-what). What’s important is he acknowledges that it is HIS view. The man wants to disband the federal governments influence on education. So we disagree, but it doesn’t matter because he doesn’t think the federal government should be in that business anyway. On this we agree. This is all that matters.
As long as we agree to abide by the Constitution and Bill of Rights then we can all have different opinions on all this stuff and it just doesn’t matter. We each can live our lives as we see fit. We need to be exerting our efforts against people who want to shove their ideals on us in the form of law. Not wasting our time bickering over each nuance of every facet of each others lives.
If the federal government wasn’t so screwed up to begin with we wouldn’t even be having these discussions. It shouldn’t matter what the pres thinks about abortion. Nowhere in the constitution did the founders give congress the authority to make laws about it one way or another. Same with evolution education. Nowhere does the president or congress have the authority to influence what we teach children in schools.
I’m not for Paul as a person. I am for the Paul that wants to restore a country based on secular ideals. Ron Paul and I can both read the constitution and agree what it says, without being aligned on any social issue. That’s what’s so great about our system of government. As long as we all agree to defend each others rights to whatever crazy nonsense we want to believe, then we’re all better off.
Cooler’s a troll, Cooler’s a troll, Cooler’s a troll. . .
Someone who’s been publicly disgraced to the magnitude that Ron Paul has should end his candidacy, resign from his House seat, and donate his campaign funds to the NAACP and/or GLAAD.
Instead we get a speech that makes GWB look like a straight talker, and he clearly now thinks the matter is settled and he can go on his merry way. It isn’t, and he can’t.
I’ve looked and looked at Ron Paul’s website and I see nothing-NOTHING-that would lead me to believe that he’s interested in anything other than being another conservative nutcase with a daddy complex. I matters a whole hell of a lot what a president thinks about social issues when he or she is one of the people who helps to, oh, I dunno, shape the laws regarding them.
Plus, those Rontards who position themselves behind every reporter on a TV they can find are getting on my damned nerves.
Perhaps cooler was counting in binary.
The Ron Paul apologists always follow the same script.
“He didn’t say it. Okay, even if he did say it, he didn’t mean it. Okay, he may have meant it in the past, but he doesn’t mean it now. Okay, maybe he does mean it now, but he’s still better than the other candidates.”
That or they’re single-issue voters who close their eyes, ears, and minds to everything else the guy says.
WW3 idiots. Wow you guys sure scrutinize Paul, and ignore the blank check hillary gave bush to kill thousands of people, the mandatory minimums supported by the republicrats that hurt minorities more than some stupid newsletter, the patriot act that obama and hillary love, gitmo, having our Navy so close to Iran that a new gulf of tonkin is practically inevetable etc etc. You guys are super annoying trolls.
PZ, why don’t you link to the rebuttal? It’s a bit unfair. Here’s the link:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/press-releases/125/ron-paul-statement-on-the-new-republic-article-regarding-old-newsletters
Quotes:
“In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person’s character, not the color of their skin.”
“I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.”
“For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”
Would a racist praise Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks? I don’t think so. And no, I’m not a Ron Paul supporter (I would probably vote for Obama if I lived in the US). I just think the evidence against him is weak. Just look for his quotes in old newspapers, as I did, and you won’t find any racist comments.
Tulse,
That still leaves 410 unaccounted for.
“I’ve looked and looked at Ron Paul’s website and I see nothing-NOTHING-that would lead me to believe that he’s interested in anything other than being another conservative nutcase with a daddy complex”
Then please go watch some YouTube debates. He even posted his TV event he did after Fox News refused to let him into their debate. If you are interested in learning about what he actually says, spend a few minutes listening to him speak.
“I matters a whole hell of a lot what a president thinks about social issues when he or she is one of the people who helps to, oh, I dunno, shape the laws regarding them.”
This is what is so wrong with politics in America right now. This really shouldn’t be an issue. The federal government should not be making laws regarding these social issues. The Constitution specifically spells out that this is a state’s issue. We all seem to have forgotten that.
You just do not seem to understand that this is all fabricated. The federal government is not supposed to be regulating these things. By falling into this whole social issue trap politicians have managed to move the conversation away from “whether or not our government should be doing this”, to “which of these social controls should it be doing”.
That’s wrong. The constitution spells out our rights. You don’t get people to believe in evolution by mandating it through law anymore than you make god real by mandating everyone pray to him by law.
Ron Paul rebutted all this on CNN. PZ myers is just a fraud whos biggest accomplishment is having a popular blog so he thinks hes god. I hope you idiots enjoy ww111 with Iran which is what youll get with hillary/guliani
Dude, the shit’s laced. Put it away.
Rather deceptive of you, PZ, to simply assert that this is “what Ron Paul really thinks.” Why can’t anybody find anything we know is written by him or anything that he’s actually spoken that would substantiate your assertion here? 20 years in the house, multiple debates, multiple statements from the house floor, multiple interviews, multiple speeches, yet not one instance of racist claims coming directly from him.
I suppose you prefer one of these warlord candidates that just wants to keep borrowing from the Chinese in order to send billions to arm the Israeli1s as well as their enemies, prop up Pakistani dictators to enrage Pakistani citizens, prop up the House of Saud to enrage Saudi’s, fund covert operations to overthrow the democratically elected leader of Iran, initiate more war with Iran, etc. Will you be happy when Hillary or some Republican is elected and our government goes bankrupt like the Soviets?
I was and still am interested in Paul not as a potential candidate for me, but for the truth he speaks, at least when under the light of the television media. In trying to be as objective as possible, I do find it hard to square what I see of him on TV with this TNR story I read on Monday. On one hand I think, how can a man that seems to make sense on a lot of specific issues on TV turn into Mr. Hyde in print?
The only answer I can come up with, until hard evidence proves otherwise, is that this guy wrote that stuff or at least condoned its printing over the course of three decades and refuses to renounce it. The favored argument that it wasn’t him that wrote it doesn’t hold water because, if it truly wasn’t him, why do I see his face and signature on some of the documents? It was certainly possible even with old technology to try to assume someone else’s identity; but why has Ron Paul not mounted a full-on legal attack on the supposed fraudster? Has he? Not that I’ve heard, and you would think the Paulite followers would’ve immediately pointed everyone to that proof. Also, why would this fraudster choose Ron Paul to defame? How did this person get away with misusing his name and legacy for thirty years? This fraudster would likely be the most famous and elusive serial libeler in American history if that were the case. Are we to believe there’s a guy running around out there with a vendetta against one Texas congressmen to spew his crap political views using someone else’s name? Has this ever happened to any such person in Paul’s position? There are a lot of holes in the story.
I want to at least take the guy seriously for the image I see of him on TV and in video clips, but this is too much.
Yeah, PZ! Sure, Ron Paul may have had racist comments published in his newsletter, spoken at racist organizations, argued for the right of the racist South to secede, argued that slavery should have been ended by paying racist Southerners for their “property” of slaves, and associated with racists, but that doesn’t mean he’s a racist himself!
@ #24:
I totally sympathize with your second item, but I guarantee you this: no matter which of the three Democrats gets into the Oval Office, not a one of them will ever prosecute the criminals. It ain’t going to happen. I’d love to be surprised and see them hauled off in orange jumpsuits to Guantanamo Bay, but as far as I can see it, anyone that thinks the long arm of the law will come down on the authoritarians and their boot-licking goose-stepping fodder in this government is on a substance stronger than any man has yet dared to abuse.
The sad truth of history is that bad guys well-financed and organized into a thieves’ cult are more likely than not to get away with anything and everything. Witness how long Pinochet avoided the law. How long former Nazi soldiers evades detection. How multi-billion dollar empires uproot and move to hostile regions and are then given legal immunity to avoid justice.
I’m hoping someone will prove me wrong and reply with beacons of hope from history. I *WANT* to be wrong on this. Knowing humanity’s survival instincts vis a vis the law however, I am not long on the possibility of justice ever being done.
Ron Paul is a hideous cross between white power authoritarianism, fundamentalist dominionism, libertarian deregulation fantasies and survivalist gold standard gibbering.
That this monstrous amalgamation of fear and hatred has come to the same conclusion about the Iraq occupation as us Dirty Fucking Hippies says volumes about the sheer and utter wrongness of invading Iraq in the first place.
That’s how it works now. You don’t speak plainly in public. You develop a specialized vocabulary. You use what is known as dog-whistle politics to get your message across. Dog-Whistle is a term used to describe a type of political campaigning or speech-making using coded language, which appears to mean one thing to the general population but which has a different or more specific meaning for a targeted subgroup of the audience.
In the 2004 Presidential debates Bush used coded language in his speeches to send messages to his supporters among the religious right that will be ignored by other parts of the U.S. population. The plainest example was the mention of the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision in the 2004 Presidential debates. The latter refers to overturning Roe v. Wade, which is likened to the Dred Scott case by some of its critics.
So, yes, Paul doesn’t spew it out like David Duke. Or some of the Stormfront guys. But they’re all part of the same club. They hang out together. They go to the same meetings. They talk to each other. They support each other. They speak the same language.
[White Supremacist David] Duke is now returning the favor, telling me that, while he will not formally endorse any candidate, he has made information about Ron Paul available on his website.
But isn’t David Duke in prison?
Such friends [I almost typed fiends] this guy has!
Why do the Paulbots think attacks on other candidates constitute a defense of Ron Paul? And it’s like they trip over themselves to see who can use the most hyperbolic language. “Oh, sure, criticize Paul. At least he’s not for the greatest, most vile crime against humanity, the Earth, and the Universe ever inflicted upon innocent victims by immoral and corrupt government ever! Namely–smoking bans!”
Racism might be the lesser of two stupids in this case unfortunately:
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/11/gop-debate-iran-rhetoric/
Not that I can imagine ever being brain-damaged enough to vote Republican, but even if nearly everthing I read about Ron Paul wasn’t enough to turn me off, his supporters would.
@JfF #66
The right *constantly* uses that “oh I agree with Dr. King about not judging people on the color of their skin” line. Usually when trying to eliminate Affirmative Action or Fairness in Lending laws or otherwise eradicating whatever gains blacks in America have made since King gave that speech. It’s a transparent attempt to co-opt the words of progressive leaders to defend regressive policies, while ignoring the substance of their messages. Besides which, you can’t publish articles claiming Martin Luther King was a Communist and serial child molestor and then go on to claim you’re defending his friggin’ legacy.
Furthermore it’s fundamentally dishonest to say this stuff was merely “under his name” when a good deal of it is also above his signature, and frequently packed with references to his wife, his family, his Congressional career, etc.
Ron Paul is unfit to run this country. However right he may be about Iraq and the drug war, his childish understanding of economics, of the nature of the free market, and the role of government would utterly dissolve the United States. We’re talking Snow Crash level disintegration here. Arguably that’s his intent in the first place, given his favorable stance towards the right of states to secede.
Someone is going to call Godwin’s Law on me here, but I believe I have a legitimate historical point to make here. I keep hearing from Ron Paul supporters how they’re just sure he will be able to accomplish the great things they want him to do, but that the Congress/Democrats will hold him in check on the other, crazier stuff.
That’s just completely naive. That is exactly what Germans thought about Hitler. I’m not saying Ron Paul is Hitler — that’s not the point. What I am saying is that it is foolish to think that magically only the parts of a leader’s agenda you like will get implemented, but the other parts won’t. A lot of Germans thought that Hitler would be good based on his economic and nationalistic policies, but that he’d never actually be able to implement his racist policies, so they supported him. But the fact is that you can’t possibly be certain which of a leader’s policies will end up getting implemented and which won’t. It’s a self-comforting fantasy to assume that it’s safe to give someone the position of Most Powerful Man in the World ™ because the parts of his agenda you don’t like will, naturally, be the ones that get blocked.
I mean, how can you know, in advance, what he will or will not be able to accomplish? This is true of all candidates, of course, but when one candidate is openly espousing craziness, a wise person has to take into account at least the possibility that, if elected, that candidate will actually manage to get some of his or her crazy policies implemented. If you can’t face what would happen on the off chance that those policies get implemented, then you should not vote for him or her. It’s just that simple.
One other point: Paul wants to limit the power of the *Federal* government to control your life and tell you what to do. But he doesn’t want less overall government interference in your life. He just wants to the *States* to be the ones who get to tell you what to do. He thinks it is oppressive that the Federal government won’t let the States ban abortion, wage their own wars on drugs, or tell you who you can and can’t marry. He absolutely does not think it is oppressive for the States to do all those things. He doesn’t want American to be more free… he just wants to change which level of government gets to do the oppressing.
#72, if a person thought it was wiser to pay several million dollars to free slaves than to kill 600,000 people and spend multiple billions on a war that ravaged the nation and lead to 100 years of anger and bitterness, this would make that person a racist?
In the process of doing it this way, Lincoln was forced to shred the Constitution. He burned printing presses, deported a Congressman that opposed him, imprisoned pastors that refused to say prayers for him, suspended habeas corpus. Put down your elementary school history book and learn a few things. You don’t have to be a racist to think that quite possibly there could have been a better way. It’s Lincoln’s precedent of ignoring the Constitution that has us in a war with Iraq, has Bush going forward with warrantless wiretaps, whisking citizens away to be tortured without allowing them a chance to protest their innocence. Ron Paul is about reversing that. We don’t follow the Constitution anymore, and that makes you less safe. The Constitution limits what the federal government can do to you. When it’s ignored, they can do anything. That’s not good. Vote for Ron Paul.
Yeah, Ron Paul’s a douche bag. But what about #26, who is apparently a profound master of morality, and must have his personal preferences instated as law. I don’t want to live in a country full of religious loonies, but that doesn’t give me the right to outlaw religion.
Marijuana is a naturally occurring plant that has obviously undergone a selection process because of the advantages of having a psychotropic substance, THC. Humans have used it for thousands of years, and will continue to. Carl Sagan was a pothead. If you would be against living in a world full of Carl Sagan’s, I don’t even know how to address you.
I’m not advocating that anyone smoke marijuana, but I do, and on a pretty regular basis. I’m a Marketing Development Manager for a national company, and I’m not bragging — just defying your stereotype of a “pothead.”
I think Orac and PZ are trading off offering up Paul-bashing threads. I’m actually starting to wonder whether it isn’t an effort to drive hits up–maybe ad revenue has been dipping a little or something. Drop a Paul thread in and apparently you get 1,000 back-patters coming out of the wooodwork all looking around going “YAH MAN, YOU GO! Just wait, a bunch of Paultards will show up soon!”, somehow missing the irony of it all.
I think it is funny that they are getting as much mileage as they are out of 20-year-old newsletters that obviously weren’t written by him. Oh noes, 15-20 years ago Paul didn’t properly supervise newsletter staff! Compare your Hillary’s voting record re: The War in Iraq/The War on Terror vs. Paul (I voted for Bill in ’96).
Yeah, and they keep accusing us of being Hillary voters. *shrug*
Me like Ron Paul. Him make black man go away.
Me like Ron Paul also him make war in Iraq go away.
Me like Ron Paul him make Roe v. Wade go away.
Me like Ron Paul too him make Department of Education go away.
Me like Ron Paul as well him make Zionist Conspiracy go away.
Me like Ron Paul!
So, a hundred years late, the Confederacy’s apologists are admitting that slavery was the issue, but the South could have been readliy bought off? What was all that rubbish about “state’s rights” and “Southern honor,” meanwhile?
As long as he isn’t stealing Democratic voters, I could care less. He’s not electable, and even if he managed to get elected, Congress wouldn’t authorize anything he wants to do and it would be a wake-up call to the political establishment.
If I had to choose one of the Republican candidates, he’d win by a long shot — shithouse-rat-crazy or not.
But anyway, go Obama — speaking of whom, I’ve seen that stupid “Obama’s a Mulsim” email 50 times in the last week and it’s being posted on MySpace left & right. And we wonder why we have sensationalized journalism. People obviously want a shocking story, true or not.
Say what you will, it’s just nice to see some rethugs that aren’t all cast form the same Reagan-Bush-Reagan mould.
well, that’s something i can agree with, Paul is certainly no Neocon!
maybe he could make that his campaign slogan?
“Ron Paul: NOT a neocon!”
:P
hmm, come to think of it, I’m not finding the clear neocon representative on this ticket, which is a bit odd.
who is it?
where is the neocon money going?
Yes, Obama. The candidate of “change.” Votes to fund the war in Iraq. Continues the Patriot Act. He’ll tell you that the soldiers in Vietnam didn’t die in vain, because he thinks that’s what you want to hear. Looking forward to his changes.
hmm, come to think of it, I’m not finding the clear neocon representative on this ticket, which is a bit odd.
who is it?
Willard’s trying. But then again, Willard’s tried every kind of con.
So, in other words, you’re pretty much just saying “BOO,” huh?
By the way, there have only been two “World Wars,” and not one-hundred and ten as you assert.
Then again, I did just wake up from a nap, so I suppose a lot could have happened in the hour, or so, I was out.
Because of Ron Paul, I am starting to no longer self identify as a libertarian
Ah. How to win friends and influence people. You should write a book. :snicker:
I’ll call it “Please don’t kill me Mr. Hitler: how politeness would have avoided the holocaust and other truly moronic ideas.”
Grease the rails to hell with false bonhomie if you wish, I could care less for the friendship of intolerant assholes and those meant to be influenced are hardly the targets of my opprobrium.
Jon:
Oh my god, you’re right! And just think of all the money the US wasted fighting the Nazis, when we could have just paid them some money to be nice! And the next time a nation kidnaps US citizens, we should just pay a ransom and avoid all sorts of nastiness! Heck, police departments should just have a “kidnapper fund”, so that these kind of circumstances can avoid all the bloodshed and expensive inconvenience of actual law enforcement.
And after all, the North would just have been reimbursing the slaveholders for their property, right? How could anyone object to rewarding someone who enslaves other human beings?
(I find it truly bizarre that someone who allegedly holds personal liberty as the highest value somehow thinks that it can be purchased, rather than is inherent in the individual.)
“I keep hearing from Ron Paul supporters how they’re just sure he will be able to accomplish the great things they want him to do, but that the Congress/Democrats will hold him in check on the other, crazier stuff.”
No, I’m basing the idea he won’t do the other crazy stuff on his 20 years in office already not doing that stuff. Say what you want about him personally, but the man is consistent in his voting. He just doesn’t vote to give the federal government more power. Ever.
“That’s just completely naive.”
Naive to assume he will continue doing what he’s been doing for decades? I know, lunacy right?
“That is exactly what Germans thought about Hitler.”
Oh sweet evil jebus. NOW Ron Paul is f-n Hitler? You have got to be kidding me, time to turn the channel.
“What I am saying is that it is foolish to think that magically only the parts of a leader’s agenda you like will get implemented, but the other parts won’t.”
I’m not expecting a part of his agenda to not show itself. His agenda has nothing to do with these social issues. His agenda is that these social issues have no place in his agenda. You keep trying to work them in though. It’s not what he said. It’s not what he said 20 years ago, yesterday, today, or ever. Stop trying to suggest that he thinks the federal government should be banning evolution, or abortion. That’s not what he’s said ever. Why can’t the man hold different opinions than you personally? Why does your little world require complete adherence to everything you like?
“One other point: Paul wants to limit the power of the *Federal* government to control your life and tell you what to do.”
Finally some sanity.
“But he doesn’t want less overall government interference in your life.”
Wait… what?
“He just wants to the *States* to be the ones who get to tell you what to do.”
Good thing he isn’t running for your state government then isn’t it? I’m trying to imagine what this has to do with…well…anything. Oh right, it doesn’t.
“He absolutely does not think it is oppressive for the States to do all those things.”
No offense, but so does the constitution. It’s not like he’s making this up as he goes. This is how it’s supposed to work. If you don’t like that then your issue is with the Constitution, not Ron Paul.
Nowhere does the president or congress have the authority to influence what we teach children in schools.
ever heard of the NCLB act?
you could argue that congress shouldn’t have this authority (which I would disagree with), but you most certainly cannot argue that they in fact DO.
So Tulse, I suppose this means the British were wrong to purchase slaves and free them. They should have had a civil war, burned printing presses, and imprisoned those that had a problem with this approach. This way the slave owners wouldn’t have been reimbursed. Sounds logical.
“He just wants to the *States* to be the ones who get to tell you what to do.”
Good thing he isn’t running for your state government then isn’t it? I’m trying to imagine what this has to do with…well…anything. Oh right, it doesn’t.
talk about projecting.
It in fact has a LOT to do with determining the leeway individual states have in overriding federal laws.
you think that irrelevant?
Paulbot, indeed.
Grease the rails to hell with false bonhomie if you wish, I could care less for the friendship of intolerant assholes and those meant to be influenced are hardly the targets of my opprobrium
i read your rant.
who exactly IS the target audience?
The only reasons I can think of for someone not accepting evolution are lack of education (and it’s only high school biology, not even anything advanced), a complete willingness to disregard evidence in favor of preconceptions, or insanity. No, it doesn’t necessarily make a person evil, but it’s not exactly the type of person I’d want as president, either. A person doesn’t get an automatic endorsement for accepting evolution, but the opposition would have to be pretty damned bad before I’d vote for someone ignorant/insane enough to doubt evolution.
Yes, Obama. The candidate of “change.” Votes to fund the war in Iraq. Continues the Patriot Act. He’ll tell you that the soldiers in Vietnam didn’t die in vain, because he thinks that’s what you want to hear. Looking forward to his changes.
Yes, because the only issues a President ever has to deal with in their administration are Iraq, the Patriot Act, and Vietnam (WTF?!? Dude, put down the bottle).
You’re an idiot that can’t be helped so keep supporting the most unelectable candidate, ever. It’s a great use of your time.
Ok, besides the several decades of racist newsletters published in his name, what evidence is there that he’s a racist? Nothing!
(sarcasm)
Jesse, what type of change do you think Americans are looking for? 70% want out of Iraq, but Obama doesn’t. People say they want politicians that tell the truth, rather than just what they think polls indicate people want to hear, but compare Mike Gravel’s response to the question “Did soldiers in Vietnam die in vain” to Obama on youtube. Mike Gravel says what’s true, Obama says what he thinks the audience wants to hear, even though it’s obvious BS. He has no record of change. On what basis has he been dubbed the candidate of change?
Certainly not in lobbyist money or corporate donations. Not on Iraq. Not on aggression in the Middle East. Not on funding both Israel and Israel’s enemies. Not on screwing with Pakistan. But he’s young and good looking and a good public speaker. And foxnews and NBC tell you he’s the candidate of change. Is that good enough for you?
There is a candidate though that hasn’t ever taken lobbyist money or corporate donations. He’d stop screwing with the Middle East. He’d de-fund Israel as well as the Arab nations. He’d stop borrowing from China to fund wars. And he actually has a record that shows he would follow through on these promises. Who’s the real candidate of change? I seriously have no idea why people think Obama is the candidate of change, except for the fact that he is dubbed this by the media.
You’re good at name calling, as are a lot of people here, but why not rather focus your efforts on considering the facts.
I’ve always been socially liberal, fiscally conservative.
The problem is, this doesn’t work anymore. The issues are too closely tied now to claim to be a social liberal, including caring about the poor, race relations, civil rights, education, etc., and at the same time support the status quo “make the 10% as rich as hell and f’ everybody else.”
Those who are arguing against the war on drugs are just as misguided as those who were arguing in favor of prohibition. Drugs, just like alcohol, are a product of the inequities in our society. People take drugs to escape their miserable lives caused by the fact that they cannot escape multigenerational poverty locked into place by underfunded racially segregated (de facto not de jure) school systems and out-sourced blue collar middle class jobs. The fiscally conservative, “let the market solve it” response doesn’t work, the failure to solve the problem causes the social problems that we have to deal with.
Poverty -> broken households -> social welfare programs.
Poverty -> drug/alcohol driven escapism -> “market driven” drug sales.
And so on and so forth.
I know someone will argue, “that sounds marxist.” Yes, yes it does, because if you took a look at Europe lately you’d realize that their socialist systems are working far better than our free market system. They have a higher standard of living, lower violent crime rate, better medical care, lower drug/alcoholism rates, etc. etc. etc.
The reason we’re so screwed up as a country is because free-market capitalism (with the incredible government corruption that makes it such a lie) has effectively bought and sold every scrap of legitimacy our government ever had. We’re 9 trillion dollars in debt and the conservative jackasses who put us there (3.5 tril’ w/Bush, 3.5 tril’ under Reagan/Bush41) argue that more tax cuts and more benefits for the wealthy will make it all better. Anyone who votes for these crooks is either stupid or a crook themselves.
My encounter with a Ron Paul supporter
In the process of doing it this way, Lincoln was forced to shred the Constitution.
Yes, when Lincoln fired on Fort Sumter, he truly showed us the way he had decided to resolve the issue. If only Lincoln hadn’t acted so rashly and expelled South Carolina from the Union before he even took office those not at all treasonous southerners would have seen the error of their ways.
I (kind of) defended Ron Paul in the comment section of your previous post, but since these newsletters appeared I have decided I can’t do that anymore. I knew of Paul’s association with the racists and kooks at the Mises Institute, and had heard that there were one or two instances of this type of stuff in his old newsletter, but it was explained that he had fired the staffer who wrote them and repudiated the substance.
Now, we know that’s just not true, and intellectual honesty–and decency generally–requires us to recognize this for what it is, and kindly remove our support for Paul’s candidacy.
That said, I still wholeheartedly support the libertarian ideas of the rule of law, markets, peace, and tolerance, which are timeless and transcend this and any other candidate or election cycle.
Even that’s not true.
You know, it would be nice to at some point get away from the sarcasm and simply have a discussion, as rational people. There are things that can be learned on both sides here. Let’s just talk.
MikeJ, are you aware that Lincoln’s cabinet informed him that if he garrisoned Ft. Sumpter this would be regarded as an act of war and would likely instigate a response? Are you aware that Lincoln in his 1st inaugural address stated that as long as the tax revenues continued to roll in from the south that he would not invade the south? I suspect there’s more to the Civil War than you know.
The South did secede to protect their slave interests. Nobody here is saying that the South was great. None of this changes the fact that Lincoln is not quite what he was portrayed to be to you, me, and every other American in high school. He did shred the constitution. That was wrong.
There is also a lot good that can be said about Lincoln. But the reality is the Civil War was a lot like most other wars. There are two sides to the story. I assume you don’t just accept Bush propaganda about the “War on Terror.” In the same way, don’t just accept the victor’s tale that this is about that courageous hero Lincoln bringing freedom to oppressed blacks. If you know your history you know that Lincoln actually never freed one single slave.
The southern states had already declared their treason before Lincoln even took office. Saying Lincoln is responsible for the south’s treasonous attack on our troops is just about the dumbest thing you could possibly say about the US civil war.
Well, at least Mr. Newburn has some integrity…the rest of the Paulbots seem to place personal loyalty to an individual above principles, because they sure don’t sound like any libertarian I know…
In order to increase ratings for the General Election Presidential debates, the Republicans have decided to nominate Ron Paul as their candidate while the Democrats have decided to nominate Dennis Kucinich as theirs.
A country garrisoning soldiers in one of that country’s own forts is an act of war?
A country moving soldiers about within that country constitutes an invasion?
Apparently Lincoln proved the succession by not recognizing the succession before it had happened.
provoked, not proved
http://causeoffreedom.blogspot.com/2008/01/89-ron-paul-addresses-racism-charges.html
Secession, not succession.
Jon:
While it is a common canard from Paul supports to hear the that the British eliminated slavery simply by paying compensation, that is simply historically false. Slaves in England were emancipated by the ruling in the Somerset case in 1772 — tens of thousands of slaves in the British Isles were effectively freed by this ruling, and no compensation was involved. In 1807 the slave trade was made illegal throughout the British Empire, and far from compensating slave traders, British ships were fined 100 pounds for every slave found on board. In addition, the Royal Navy suppressed the slave trade by other nations — ships’ crews were paid “head money” for each slave freed from other nations’ ships, but those nations received no compensation for slaves so liberated. It is only in the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833, which made the entire practice illegal in the British colonies (it was, as noted above, already effectively illegal in Britain itself), that some form of compensation was offered, and this only for those held in the Carribean, Mauritius, and the Cape of Good Hope.
So it is a gross inaccuracy to say that the British ended slavery only by paying compensation. It is further a gross inaccuracy to say that they risked “civil war” if they hadn’t paid compensation, as the only places slavery was still legal at that time were the rather unorganized small colonies of Britain, more economic possessions than actual political entities with any form of native military (in many cases, the colonies were largely populated by slaves).
In any case, I find it interesting that all the allegedly “libertarian” Paul supporters, those who value the ability to sell one’s labour as they like, are so keen on the notion of compensation to the slave owners, but never talk about compensation to the slaves, to those people whose labour was forcibly taken from them. You’d think that demanding recompense from the slave owners who stole that labour by violence to the slaves they stole it from would be far more the libertarian ideal than suggesting rewarding people who so brutally denied the liberty and free negotiation of labour of others. In what other situation would a libertarian suggest that those who use violence to steal the labour of others be rewarded by the State for such theft? It might make one wonder if there might be something about those others that “colours” their judgement in this matter, and causes them to abandon their allegedly deeply held principles.
If you know your history you know that Lincoln actually never freed one single slave.
Because he never personally owned any to free to begin with.
btw, is this the “argument” you were considering when you speak of “knowing history”:
Forced Into Glory – Abraham Lincoln’s White Dream
if so, you might want to read this:
http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/books/steersward.htm
Thank you #81, mooglar:
A more cogent argument couldn’t be made. Each one of the candidates at one time or another have actually made sense about one thing or another. But it is the WHOLE picture of the candidate that is important. Wishfull thinking about what we’d LIKE the candidate to be does not count.
And for those actually stupid enough to say “I’m not for Ron Paul the person, I’m for Ron Paul the candidate,” do you have any idea how moronic you sound?
If the PERSON is a racist, the CANDIDATE won’t be? If that were true (which it most catagorically is NOT)that PERSON/CANDIDATE cannot be anything other than insane or a complete, hypocritical liar.
And just to clue you in, either one of those conditions SHOULD preclude the candidate from office, Larry Craig notwithstanding.
#82
shorter:
Vote Ron Paul: he is not Lincoln.
idiot.
Ron Paul is the ideal choice as president for anyone who wants to keep America a respectible, sovereign nation. Seriously, though, are there any better presidential candidates out there? Answer: NO.
Happy witch-hunting. While you’re at it, chew on these, too:
http://reason.com/blog/show/124351.html#880338
-jcr
Oops, looks like Pete Mackin forgot these:
http://sonic.net/maledicta/clintons.html
-jcr
john, I’m sorry, but if you actually READ the article you linked to you see:
In this case, Dr. Paul is suffering charges of racism and lunacy for the “sins” of his followers.
which has already been shown not to be the case.
it’s not a case of witch hunting at all.
nice try, though.
“Whatever the war on drugs may be, it is definitely not the most oppressive form of racism there is.”
It is in the USA:
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/usa/incarceration/
So, while people are crucifying Ron Paul for the contents of a newsletter that he didn’t write, and didn’t edit, they would happily sink the only candidate who’s made it perfectly clear that if elected, he would free the POWs of the war on drugs.
-jcr
and the second appears to be more about Hillary’s use of colorful language.
again, nice try, but no cigar.
happy stereotyping.
“which has already been shown not to be the case.”
Guess again.
-jcr
Guess again.
*ahem*
here’s one, for fun:
http://skemono.blogspot.com/2008/01/one-more-paul-post.html
scroll up in the thread to find more.
Ichthyic,
Look a little further down. Scan for the phrase “Jew bastard”.
-jcr
uh, you’re at the bottom of this thread, did you have something specific in mind, or are you just gibbering?
Further down in the article about Hillary, smart-ass. You know, the one you only glanced at.
-jcr
Further down in the article about Hillary, smart-ass. You know, the one you only glanced at.
here’s a point for you, moron:
pointing out someone else’s racist statements doesn’t absolve your buddy of blame for doing so himself, now does, it?
you might try doing more than glancing at THIS thread yourself.
pathetic.
“The southern states had already declared their treason before Lincoln even took office. ‘
Nope, they’d seceded. Having done so, they had no duty of loyalty to the union. Had the southern states remained in the union and helped some other country to make war against the united states, *that* would be treason.
-jcr
“(I would probably vote for Obama if I lived in the US).”
What an idiot. I’m glad you are not voting for that very reason. Obama WOULD make a good manager at McDonald’s, though. And why do you think you can’t vote anyway? Can you not locate the US embassy in the country of which you reside?
“pointing out someone else’s racist statements doesn’t absolve your buddy of blame for doing so himself, now does, it?”
I see you’ve missed the crucial difference of the two situations. Ron Paul is being tarred and feathered for statements made by someone else, while Hillary skates on racial epithets she said herself.
-jcr
Expat,
To be fair, Obama is probably the least of the evils running for the democratic nomination.
-jcr
“where is the neocon money going?”
The neocons are split behind Romney, Giuliani and McCain. Huckabee’s getting mostly the Pat Robertson crowd.
-jcr
Expat,
To be fair, Obama is probably the least of the evils running for the democratic nomination.
-jcr
Posted by: John C. Randolph | January 12, 2008 3:13 AM
Of course you are right. I just don’t trust the man, and admit I’m biased towards him. The man seems amateurish, and I don’t think it’s the right time to “experiment” with our first black president. At least he is a breath of fresh air from the “old mold” which has been in congress for so long. Heaven forbid Clinton because our next president.
Debating with Ron Paul supporters is like debating with religious fundamentalists; it’s entirely predictable that they will contort logic, ignore evidence, and lie lie lie. They’re what you scrape off your shoe, not have a debate with.
If libertarians want people to think they aren’t slimeballs, the first thing they need to do is distance themselves from Ron “they look suspicious” Paul.
#139
“The man seems amateurish, and I don’t think it’s the right time to “experiment” with our first black president. ”
I really don’t know what is “amateurish” about Obama.
Just listen to him talking about “science and technology” :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UUprAhMTo8&feature=related
Doesn’t sound too “amateurish” to me, or at least less than what I’ve heard from any other candidate on this subject.
“Ichthyic,
Look a little further down. Scan for the phrase “Jew bastard”.
-jcr”
Well seeing as it comes from such a presitigious and unbiased source as Newsmax, it must be true and of course screaming racial epithets during a fit of anger (even if true) is EXACTLY the same as publishing a newsletter full of them for years on end.
Robert Thille: Yeah, I find myself agreeing with what Pat Buchanan says sometimes, too. But almost NEVER the reasons he thinks those things.
Hell, I’d bet everyone reading this blog would agree with Hitler or Stalin once in a while. Doesn’t mean I wouldn’t take either one of them out back and beat them like a dog until my arm breaks.
Ron Paul is also DEAD wrong on the smaller government bullshit. If that guy got his way we’d end up living Mad Max-style, and the only upshot of that is that I’d be coming to his house before turning my semi toward all his voters.
craig: Let’s not and hope that Huckabee wins the nomination instead. Then we can just say Wayne DuMond and the race is over. It’ll be even easier than beating Romney with a rack of flip-flops or Thompson by hiding his hammock.
Anyway, for all Ron Paul supporters, here’s a nice way to make money : place a bet on one of the bookies like paddypower.com.
He’s at 66 to 1, so if you really think he has a chance to become next president, put your money where your mouth is…
Ron paul is NOT a libertarian at all. Ron paul is simply a neo-confederate. And his dismantle-the-federal-government battle cry is simply an attempt to continue the civil war by other means.
Timothy said:
Given technological trends in the mid to late Twenty-First Century
, we’d all end up living Mad Max-style whether you like it or not. We are predatory ape animals anyway and we are NOT exempt from the “law of the jungle”.
P.S., it is a hell-lot-easier to deter aggressors if one has home-made personal WMD (microbial or nanite weapons).
Given technological trends in the mid to late Twenty first century , we either abolish the law of the jungle altogether, or we commit suicide
This whole American presidential horse race is a lot of fun (seen from the other side of the Atlantic).
I mean, look at it, Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee, Fred Thomson, wherelse could you find such quality morons being candidates for the most important job in the world ?
You guys are lucky, you get to choose.
But just one small request, this time (unlike the two last elections), can you please make sure you don’t select another mentally retarded individual who destabilizes the whole world and fucks the whole planet ?
Pleaaaaaase, can we have our planet back ?
NO!
NEVER!
It’s ALL ours!
Bwahahahahahaha!
Sad, isn’t it?
Eeny-miney-moe, who’s the least stupid?
Hard to chose there….
Since Pual has, beyond making pathetic denials, failed to put on any proof that he did not write those racial insults, I’m going with another one of the “LIARS FOR PAUL” observation about your post.
And, btw, it is possible to prove that those letters were ghostwritten. We deal with this all the time in forensic accounting & auditing. We deal with this the time in any type of forensic investigation, including criminal investigations.
If there was a ghostwriter, there would be a paper-trial. Telephone logs, invoices, long-distance calls to the ghostwriter, correspondence, draft letters for approval, etc. It would be trivially easy for Paul to prove he didn’t write those letters.
Yet… Sound of crickets…
But then I expect that from you and the rest of the Paul bots. All for the bits of the Constitution you like, but only if interpreted in your demented, frequently unconstitutional ways. Never mind the way you clowns turn your back on solid science that rebuts your idiotic beliefs.
No worries douche bag. I was mocking you. Because you’re an idiot and your moronic post wasn’t worth debating or rebutting.
no matter which of the three Democrats gets into the Oval Office, not a one of them will ever prosecute the criminals.
****************
I don’t understand. A war that didn’t have to be vs a president having relations with another woman….
Which is the bigger issue, and why do people not see it?
You can’t prosecute them if you don’t have the justice department and the senate on your side.
Fine, Paul wants to stop the war on drugs, but what, if anything, will he do instead? The European model of “therapy instead of punishment”? That would have to be done by the <gasp> government, right…?
Hello, cooler! Is there such a thing as a single-issue denialist? :-)
A driver on Highway X between Y and Z and listens to the radio: “Warning, warning. On Highway X between Y and Z someone is driving in the wrong direction.” Angrily, the driver switches it off and says “‘Someone’? Hundreds!”
Look! Paul is completely incompetent! Incompetent for President!!!1! Hooray!!!1!
Fine, Paul wants to stop the war on drugs, but what, if anything, will he do instead? The European model of “therapy instead of punishment”? That would have to be done by the <gasp> government, right…?
Hello, cooler! Is there such a thing as a single-issue denialist? :-)
A driver on Highway X between Y and Z and listens to the radio: “Warning, warning. On Highway X between Y and Z someone is driving in the wrong direction.” Angrily, the driver switches it off and says “‘Someone’? Hundreds!”
Look! Paul is completely incompetent! Incompetent for President!!!1! Hooray!!!1!
Robert: Actually, you sound like the FBI should be coming to YOUR house to look into your stockpile of weapons. If you’re seriously supporting the idea that everyone has personal biological weapons you are a fucking idiot, but then again you’re defending “Doctor Ron Paul”, so that’s expected.
Which is the bigger issue, and why do people not see it?
still waiting for a well-reasoned answer to that one myself.
I see you’ve missed the crucial difference of the two situations. Ron Paul is being tarred and feathered for statements made by someone else, while Hillary skates on racial epithets she said herself.
excuse me, but i guess you failed not only to read the link i provided for you, but also failed to scroll up and read the rest of the information presented in this thread as well.
are you really so stuck on the idea of “paul as monkey wrench” that you will lie to yourself?
A driver on Highway X between Y and Z and listens to the radio: “Warning, warning. On Highway X between Y and Z someone is driving in the wrong direction.” Angrily, the driver switches it off and says “‘Someone’? Hundreds!”
funny ’cause it’s true.
…and applies to far more situations than just this one, unfortunately.
T_U_T said:
Sure we can abolish the “law of the jungle”. We can use Jeebus’ Magic Wand to do so. And you know what, we can also invent Perpetual Motion Machines as well (/sarc).
We’re animals, get over it. Unless you believe in claptrap that man is magically created in god’s image. The trends mean that dense concentrations of population (ie. the metropolis) will be forced to disperse. They also mean that the will of the large centralized state will be impossible to enforce. Micro-states with dispersed populations would be the result.
Timothy
It’s funny that you call me a “fucking idiot” when you can’t even master reading comprehension, jackass. I never said I supported “Doctor Ron Paul” and there’s a difference between “ought” and “can”. Should people have personal nanite and biological weapons? The question doesn’t matter, people will get them anyway in the mid to late Twenty-First Century (you do know what “home manufacture” means right?) and there’s nothing that any government agency can do in that future to stop it. Why can’t we send the FBI to seize Kim Jung Il’s weapons or Pakistan’s? Care to answer that?
I noticed that you have threatened me with violence-by-proxy. How charming. Why don’t YOU YOURSELF break into my home you coward instead of sending hired goons. I could care less about your “Mister Rogers” World anyway.
You’re like that Colonial European in 1900 who thinks that Europe’s Colonial Empires will still be around in 2000.
“It in fact has a LOT to do with determining the leeway individual states have in overriding federal laws.”
States have basically NO leway to over-ride federal laws. Let’s take medical marijuana as an example. Legal in CA, federal government still arrests people they catch. It’s a right hand/left hand thing. The two governments are run by completely different people with completely different agendas.
“you think that irrelevant?”
I’ve never heard the man say he thinks the state governments *should* do those things. Just that if it’s going to happen that’s where it should be. I’m not projecting here, you are. You keep ascribing things to him he never said.
So ultimately yes. I think if the guy is running for president, then his views on the laws of any individual state is basically irrelevant.
“Paulbot, indeed.”
Calling me names is not an argument.
“A person doesn’t get an automatic endorsement for accepting evolution, but the opposition would have to be pretty damned bad before I’d vote for someone ignorant/insane enough to doubt evolution.”
Ok, here’s my issue. Both Obama and Clinton both voted for Iraq and the patriot act. Ron Paul didn’t. To me the non-issue of the federal stance on evolution is less immediately important to me than getting my rights back, and getting out of Iraq.
I don’t care about Obama’s or Clinton’s views on evolution because that’s not the job of the president. The job of the president is restoring habeus corpus and figuring out what we’re doing with this whole “war on terrorism” thing. I know that makes me crazy…
“People take drugs to escape their miserable lives caused by the fact that they cannot escape multigenerational poverty locked into place by underfunded racially segregated (de facto not de jure) school systems and out-sourced blue collar middle class jobs.”
Is this pz’s blog? Where do you people come from? Ever heard of medical marijuana? Why is alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, and legal amphetamines OK, but these other ones make people miserable poverty locked people? Are you high? What gives you the right to tell me what is and isn’t ok for me in my life? I don’t care what YOU think about these drugs because I’m not running your life.
Nice to see bigotry alive and well in the good ol’ USA. I don’t need to live my life, I have you guys to do that for me.
Ichthyic said:
Probably “Cult of Personality”. What did you expect? Humans are apes after all. Why do people still revere Che Guevara?
Ryan said:
Oh, the reason was that early in the Twentieth Century the other drugs were banned because minorities were using them. It was bigotry and “smiley-faced” fascism that started this idiotic “Drug War”.
@Robert
I agree. It was for a lot of reasons, but none of them very logical. The drug war has created all the problems we ascribe to drugs. Without this ridiculous war we wouldn’t have ANY of the drug related problems we have today. Like Capone and his like disappeared after prohibition, so will the drug king-pins after drug prohibition.
I’m as of yet to hear of a drive-by over a pack of cigarettes. The Escobar’s of the world didn’t get insanely wealthy selling coca-cola. Nobody steals from their mother to get money to buy coffee. They got it selling a legitimate product millions of Americans wanted, but a tiny few religious-idealists at the top decided we shouldn’t be able to have.
The war on drugs makes about the same amount of sense as abstinence only education. It doesn’t work, and I’m at a loss as to why we would want it to anyway. Decisions about drugs and life-style should be between a person and their doctor. I don’t see what made Nixon qualified to pass judgement on either.
Probably “Cult of Personality”.
perhaps.
flesh it out.
banned because minorities were using them.
well, that was the face put on it in order to sell the legislation (wouldn’t work as well these days, but still would have at least some effect).
in fact, addiction to opiates and cocaine really were significant problems, even back then.
true that legislation has not been even handed (OTOH, we DID have prohibition), but that has less to do with racism than economics.
Negentropyeater said:
Ahhh, magical thinking, it’s not just for Young-Earth Creationist morons anymore. If only the magical powers of the U.S. Presidency –under… lets say Obama– can be used to “poof!” growing global instability out of existence. Hey! Kinda like the notion of god “poofing” the Universe into existence in 6 days 6000 years ago.
If you actually live long enough to reach the late-Twenty-First Century, you gonna really fucking hate this planet.
If only the magical powers of the U.S. Presidency -under… lets say Obama- can be used to “poof!” growing global instability out of existence. Hey! Kinda like the notion of god “poofing” the Universe into existence in 6 days 6000 years ago.
now you’re just rambling.
Ichthyic, perhaps I can cite a secondary source that explains “Cult of Personality” better than I can. It primarly deals with this phenomenon in Dictatorships but it is also present in Liberal Democracies.
My take is that in a “Cult of Personality” the person leading a movement becomes one with the movement’s message. The message become the person and the person’s personality becomes the message. If the person becomes the message, he maybe can be regarded as “infallible”. Julius Caesar is a good example. In many cases so is the Pope. Same goes for Kim Jung Il.
Ichthyic said:
What? You don’t think that’s magical thinking?
The most interesting thing is that so-called “athiest” lefties like T_U_T still have a tendency to believe in nonsensical superstitious notions such as abolishing the “law of the jungle” for humans or pacifism and disarmament. As if the human ape is a “divinely special” creature exempt from all other animals/organisms and the laws of nature that govern them. Such dumbassery! At this link
, a poster named Jay Manifold and a creationist named Steve commented on this cognitive dissonance.
Steve said:
Jay Manifold said:
Irony indeed. T_U_T, you are a fucking dumbass religionist.
It’s funny how these paulbots come here with their pet issues thinking it’ll convince us that Ron Paul isn’t a backward douche bag…give it up. We don’t care.
Ron Paul is the latest Lyndon LaRouche.
And no I’m not worried about the Reptillian Illuminati.
ryanb said:
True that. Funny, I don’t recall members of Budweiser do driveby’s against members of Coors. Even Starbucks doesn’t charge $500 per Latte Venti.
I think the Drug War is a result of magical thinking enshrined as law. The idea of merely passing law will make the “bad” thing go away, nevermind the fact that a law’s effectiveness is entirely dependent on how much striking power the government’s law-enforcement has. If there is not enough striking power, the law is just a stupid piece of paper.
I DON’T LIKE THIS, PASS A LAW: POOF!!!
Still don’t like it, pass another law: POOF!!!
Pass yet another law: POOF!!!
What’s dumbassery is believing that animals can’t or shouldn’t cooperate because of a mythical principle called “the law of the jungle”.
Robert, you are the living proof that the stupid bosons are indeed massless. Otherwise you would be well beyond the TOV limit.
So, you seem to agree with cdesign proponentsists assertion that evolution means that because we are just animals and thus ought behave to each other like wild beasts.
What about any evidence to back up your claims ? Oh, and insults don’t count as evidence ;-)
FINALLY!
I knew those archives at the University of Kansas were there this whole time, having consulted them while a dramaturg for a play called “God’s Country” by Stephen Dietz.
To all you who are interested in confirming this, it’s the “Wilcox Collection on Contemporary Political Movements” at the Spencer Library on the KU campus. They have copies of the Ron Paul Political Report which predate the article about the L.A. riots that has been making the rounds.
To all of you who want to make the ghostwriter argument, they have several years of back issues. That’s a lot of ghostwriters.
Having been a ghostwriter on a couple of occasions for a major publishing house when I was poor and starving, I can assure you that ghostwriters are not intended to step outside the boundaries of what they’ve been asked to ghost. In short, they’d only deliver up racist screeds if racist screeds were what was requested.
Let’s hope that this sinks the misguided ‘progressive’ love-in with Paul and gets them focused on actually electing anti-war Democrats, like Richardson or Kucinich.
Ichthyic: Various places, I think, including Clinton.
“It’s funny how these paulbots come here with their pet issues thinking it’ll convince us that Ron Paul isn’t a backward douche bag…give it up. We don’t care.”
This name calling is just silly. I’m just a guy that likes to read this blog. The fact is I like Paul but don’t think he has a chance to win. Too many people like you. You are very willing to believe any of the democrats currently on the ticket actually will change things.
After decades of politics I’ve learned to identify regular politics when I see it. Bush sold the neo-cons on all these things he could never do, and the Democratic party is selling you all these things they’ll never be able to do.
Republicans will fight things like national health care with every breath they have. Neither Hillary nor Obama will give you national health care. I’m even willing to put money on that.
If you really don’t care then stop posting about him. For someone who doesn’t care you spend an aweful lot of time… well… caring. You don’t put forward anything meaningful to the conversation, you just call me names and then call Paul names. Very adult.
If you don’t want to discuss him then leave the thread. Nobody is trying to talk to you if you don’t want to discuss it. I’m just hoping Paul will be able to shift the discussions away from pipe dream like national health care, federal evolution, federal abortion, on onto things this next president WILL be able to do things about.
Let’s clear out these secret prisons. Let’s give all our citizen habeus corpus. Let’s catch Obama. Let’s figure out what we can do different in Iraq. Let’s talk realistically about terrorism and the role we can play against it. Maybe they really do use the fact we have military bases in their country to rally support against us. The fact is Canada is basically the same as the US but they don’t hate them. Why?
Your stupid cognitive slip shows you’re a kook.
Obama?
It’s Osama, dumb ass.
“Let’s hope that this sinks the misguided ‘progressive’ love-in with Paul and gets them focused on actually electing anti-war Democrats, like Richardson or Kucinich.”
Ok, that’s just funny. You know Kucinich and Paul are friends right? They basically have the same platform. They vote very similarly on most issues. Kucinich is the democratic Paul.
In one interview they asked Paul which of the other candidates he would consider to be his VP. He said Kucinich was the only other politician out there that would be acceptable to him.
“It’s Osama, dumb ass.”
That entire rant and the fact that I didn’t notice I accidentally put a “b” where I should have put an “s” is all you can comment on?
“Your stupid cognitive slip shows you’re a kook.”
Yes. That or the fact that everywhere I’ve turned for the last week I’ve seen OBAMA posted everywhere. I’m talking politics and I accidentally misplaced an “s” with a “b”.
Who uses the word kook anyway?
What’s with the name calling anyway? You always call everybody names that tries to have a discussion with you? I bet you have a lot of friends.
Ryan.
Ron Paul is a putz. He will never be elected president.
And if you missed it, he’s a evolution denier.
Case closed on the Kook.
At least Kucinich has a hot wife.
I don’t suffer fools well.
And those kind of “slips” are what we’ll be hearing a lot of if Obama gets the nomination.
Get it through your head. Ron will never be elected. He’d be a NIGHTMARE.
But go ahead, keep dreaming.
It’s like talking to a wall. I already said I don’t think he’s going to win. We all say we want change, but it’s clear from the way we vote that we don’t. This Clinton will deliver as much change as the last one did, and I figure she has this locked up.
If Obama wins then he’ll enact no more change than Clinton would. He will not be able to push his social issues for the same reason Bush couldn’t push his. If half the country is against your ideas, then they never come to pass. The democrats have done a horrible job of selling socialized medicine, and we just aren’t ready for it. Same with foreign policy that doesn’t involve blowing up middle-easterners. Say what you want but the republicans have done a much better job of selling their side of things.
I’m just trying to shift the conversation away from these non-issues, to stuff that the next president will be dealing with.
“And if you missed it, he’s a evolution denier.”
Again, I didn’t miss it. Let’s try a new tactic. Please tell me the last name of a federal bill that became law that included a national stance on evolution. Anything with any pro or anti evolution stance by the federal government will do. When you’re done wasting your time come back and tell me what you found.
I can’t imagine why you would even want such a thing. The nature of science is it changes. Doing something stupid like codifying evolution as law means it becomes illegal to do research to try to disprove it. Worse, if we come across something in the future that casts doubt on it it will be illegal to posses that information. That is not science. You and I both know the likelyhood of that happening is closing in on 0, but that still doesn’t make the idea of codifying current science theories as law a good idea.
“And those kind of “slips” are what we’ll be hearing a lot of if Obama gets the nomination.”
Ok! I’m sorry! I simply read over it too fast. You can’t even be bothered to address any of the issues I bring up, but I can’t switch two letters around? You even knew what I meant from the context. Talk about arguing over a complete non-issue.
It wasn’t intentional. I wasn’t trying to suggest that Obama, who is black, American, and doesn’t sport a cool beard, was somehow related to the guy from Saudi Arabia who constantly chants death to america, in a language I don’t speak, while sporting a cool beard, were somehow the same person. Does anyone really think we’re going to mistake the guy running for president of the united states for the guy who masterminded the 9/11 attacks? I think the electorate for the most part don’t really understand federal issues, but even I don’t think there’s much risk of that.
If I’m a Paul-bot does that make you an Obama-bot?
I didn’t pick their names. One is named Osama and one is Obama. I have no control over their names. I apologize for switching them and harming your fragil sensibilities. Can we talk about the issues now?
“failed to put on any proof that he did not write those racial insults, ”
Hey, he probably can’t prove that he’s not a witch, either.
He said that he neither wrote nor agrees with those statements, and the entirely of his career in the congress and the essays which he *did* write, show that his stand on racism is just as he states on his campaign website here:
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=982
Here’s quite a bit of other material he’s written. I don’t see a racist lurking here:
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/
-jcr
“If there was a ghostwriter, there would be a paper-trial. Telephone logs, invoices, long-distance calls to the ghostwriter, correspondence, draft letters for approval, etc. It would be trivially easy for Paul to prove he didn’t write those letters.”
Guess again. This isn’t Time Magazine we’re talking about here, it’s a shoestring operation that took submissions from a lot of people, many of whom probably weren’t even paid. The articles in question didn’t have bylines, and your insistence that RP produce a witch to burn doesn’t make him magically able to do so.
-jcr
Why do people still revere Che Guevara?
Marketing.
-jcr
You two are boring and repetitive.
Give it a rest.
Having been a ghostwriter on a couple of occasions for a major publishing house when I was poor and starving, I can assure you that ghostwriters are not intended to step outside the boundaries of what they’ve been asked to ghost. In short, they’d only deliver up racist screeds if racist screeds were what was requested.
And it’s no ghostwriter who said “they look suspicious”, is featured at davidduke.com, and gets his picture taken with the folks from stormfront.
Back in 1996, when Paul won the GOP nomination for the 14th district, he said that his newletter was based on “current events and statistical reports of the time”; he did not deny its content or even having written it. In regard to the statement in his 1992 newsletter that “I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal”, Ron Paul said, in 1996, out of his own mouth: “These aren’t my figures. That is the assumption you can gather from [the report]”. (The report stated that 85% of black males had been arrested at some time. I myself have been arrested, but it would not be a safe assumption that I am “semi-criminal or entirely criminal”, whatever that might mean.)
But even if the inference to the best explanation were not that he is a racist, his rejection of separation of church and state, promotion of the notion of the U.S. as a Christian nation, and his demonization of nonbelievers would be enough to reject him. And even if that weren’t, there are dozens of other reasons.
gets his picture taken with the folks from stormfront
Correction: a couple of the stormfronters, who didn’t identify themselves, asked to have a picture taken with him. Thousands of people have asked him for a picture, and he poses with anyone who asks, without making them go through an ideological purity examination first.
-jcr
Thanks truth.
Not like it matters to the Paulbots. They have their pet issues and are perfectly willing to cover their ears and go “la la la la la laaaaa la la la la la laaaaaa, I can’t hear you!”
NAACP President: Ron Paul Is Not A Racist
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2008/011308_not_racist.htm
windy said:
Sure they do, within their tribe. If an enemy of the tribe shows up, the “law of the jungle” still stands. Instead of the survival of the fittest individual, it is the survival of the fittest tribe. After all, your collectivist tribe continually threaten us individualists with violence from government thugs (ex. gun control,”hate speech” laws, etc). If you think that 6 billion predatory apes with mutually contradicting notions of what “ought to be” are going to cooperate out of love and fuzzy bunnies then you’re a fucking dipshit.
…but allowed them to be published in a newsletter that bears his name, indicating that he is either a) a terrible manager who let people write things he finds objectionable for years without firing those involved or publishing retractions in the same newsletter, and thus doesn’t seem fit to run a small business, much less the world’s only hyperpower, or b) a liar. Which do you think it is?
The Lucifer Principle said:
If that’s so, apparently the “truth” machine’s argument has been knocked down. Nevertheless, one must still avoid getting ones-self trapped in a “Cult of Personality”.
Sure they do, within their tribe.
wtf?
dude, did you stop reading after perusing Burroughs’ Tarzan series as a child?
start here:
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/toc/jeb/19/5?cookieSet=1
and work your way backwards until you find something that your tiny brain can comprehend.
“gets his picture taken with the folks from stormfront”
Correction: a couple of the stormfronters, who didn’t identify themselves, asked to have a picture taken with him.
I don’t think you understand the concept of “correction”, as those two statements are not contradictory. In any case, I’ll take it that you have no “correction” for the rest of what I posted.
Since they are unidentified to you, I will identify them for you: Don Black, former Grand Wizard of the KKK, who was convicted in 1981 for attempted armed overthrow of the Dominican government in violation of the U.S. Neutrality Act, is the founder of Stormfront, married David Duke’s ex-wife, and has donated to Ron Paul’s campaign … and his son Derek Black, founder of Stormfront For Kids. Ron Paul is well known to these people; the jury is still out on whether they are well known to him.
Please tell me the last name of a federal bill that became law that included a national stance on evolution.
In fact, it was a very close thing that the NCLB did not include such language, and it WAS added as an unofficial “rider” by Rick Santorum.
you really are rambling.
stop embarrassing yourself.
or fuck, don’t.
see how far it gets you.
If that’s so, apparently the “truth” machine’s argument has been knocked down.
A fallacious appeal to authority does not “knock down” any argument — how incredibly stupid.
What’s dumbassery is believing that animals can’t or shouldn’t cooperate because of a mythical principle called “the law of the jungle”.
Uh, it was T_U_T who brought up this “law of the jungle” silliness.
truth machine said:
Good point, I stand corrected.
#199: No, it was Robert in #146. The battle for the jungle will be fought with nanite weapons!
Ichthyic said:
So what, the link says that altruism and cooperation evolved to enhance survival. Individuals form a tribe for common defense against enemies and predators for survival. Thus it would behoove them to use altruism and cooperation to strengthen the group. That just means survival of the fittest group and no-way means that we magically transform into angels jackass.
So what, the link says that altruism and cooperation evolved to enhance survival.
actually the “link” doesn’t say anything.
it merely links to a table of contents.
you actually have to READ to grasp what the articles are talking about. go figure.
That just means survival of the fittest group and no-way means that we magically transform into angels jackass.
??
you’re insane.
*shrug*
this thread is just full of nutters, and PZ has more than proven his point, I think.
RP attracts nutters like shit attracts flies.
strange, but that does appear to be the case, looking at many threads regarding RP here and elsewhere.
case closed.
windy the dumbass said:
No windy the dumbass, truth machine is right, T_U_T brought it up. He thinks that the human ape is magically exempt from the same rules for survival that govern other animals.
T_U_T said:
I propose legislation to make the Law of Gravity optional /Sarc.
Ichtyic, you were unable to get what I said. I said that individuals form groups to enhance their survival and that cooperation within the group strengthens the group against predators and enemies. What part of that is false?
T_U_T said:
Interesting statement, here’s another interesting statement:
Does he also post as Robert sometimes? Or are you talking about another thread?
T_U_T said:
Funny, a whole bunch of human apes forgot to read the memo that they ought not behave to each other like wild beasts. Humans are animals. Although it is usually more profitable to freely do commerce with the other person than fighting that other person, there is little to no objective basis for morality beyond that rule. Humans are animals and your mister rogers world is fake.
T_U_T said:
Funny, a whole bunch of human apes forgot to read the memo that they ought not to behave to each other like wild beasts.
img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2007/0704/hamas_war0402.jpg
poetry.rotten.com/agricola/
http://www.fica.org/hr/sanggauledo/Sanggauledo2.html
Humans are animals. Although it is usually more profitable to freely do commerce with the other person than fighting that other person, there is little to no objective basis for morality beyond that rule. Humans are animals and your mister rogers world is fake.
“Which is the bigger issue, and why do people not see it?
still waiting for a well-reasoned answer to that one myself.”
The blow job is the bigger issue, of course. If a Democratic President is reasonably successful, and presides over a reasonably good time economically (though not without flaws), and gets a hummer in his office besides, people might never vote in any more Republicans, thereby eliminating the chance for a lot of looting and treachery. An illegal war, on the other hand, provides many, many opportunities for profiteering and sadism and thus is to be encouraged.
Regarding that NAACP “President” thing, perhaps it would have been better to mention that it was the President of the Austin chapter, or something along those lines. Kind of like when those who decry the 16th Amendment (Income tax) by claiming a judge ruled that it enabled no new tax powers fail to mention that in the very next sentence of the ruling the same judge said that the government already had the power to tax incomes (the 16th Amendment allowed unapportioned taxes, i.e. the gov’t doesn’t have to specify what they’re for in the legislation). If you’re going to fight for a cause, right or wrong, sane or bugf*ck, if you can’t get basic facts right out front and have to rely on distortions or omissions, no matter how righteous your cause, you’re going to come off as a shifty, disingenuous scammer.
The thing that’s so pathetic about you leftists is that you are no different than the Young-Earth Creationists. You make twists and turns to magically separate the human ape from the other animals in order to deny the fact that human apes are governed by the same rules of survival as all other great apes as well as all other organisms. Just like creationists.
windy said:
Yup you’re right. I mentioned that term first. T_U_T then said that it can be abolished. Which is just as ridiculous as proposing legislation to make the Law of Gravity optional.
#199: No, it was Robert in #146. The battle for the jungle will be fought with nanite weapons!
Sorry, my mistake. Carry on.
Humans are animals. Although it is usually more profitable to freely do commerce with the other person than fighting that other person…
Did it cross your mind that people here might be talking about such types of cooperation, not “magic”?
Humans are animals and your mister rogers world is fake.
So why aren’t you out to kill your neighbours before they can kill you?
Also, humans being “predatory” has little to do with whether it’s normal for them to kill their conspecifics.
Yeah those laws against murder are just airy-airy leftist denial of our natural killer instincts.
I’m sure Robert thinks they should be abolished?
Incidentally Richard where do bonoboes fit into your killer ape theory?
Your stupid cognitive slip shows you’re a kook.
Obama?
It’s Osama, dumb ass.
Posted by: Steve_C | January 13, 2008 12:58 PM
Should “dumb ass” be written as two words, dumbass?
“It’s Osama, dumb ass.”
That entire rant and the fact that I didn’t notice I accidentally put a “b” where I should have put an “s” is all you can comment on?
“Your stupid cognitive slip shows you’re a kook.”
Yes. That or the fact that everywhere I’ve turned for the last week I’ve seen OBAMA posted everywhere. I’m talking politics and I accidentally misplaced an “s” with a “b”.
Who uses the word kook anyway?
What’s with the name calling anyway? You always call everybody names that tries to have a discussion with you? I bet you have a lot of friends.
Posted by: ryanb | January 13, 2008 1:10 PM
Don’t worry, he’s just an obnoxious ass. Kinda reminds you of a pesty little sister, doesn’t he? Always whining and namecalling and doing almost everything else so he can feel he is somehow when an argument- except backing up his views, that is.
They’re obviously the dirty hippies.
“Make love, not war, man!”
@ #96:
>>No, I’m basing the idea he won’t do the other crazy stuff on his 20 years in office already not doing that stuff. Say what you want about him personally, but the man is consistent in his voting. He just doesn’t vote to give the federal government more power. Ever.
>>Naive to assume he will continue doing what he’s been doing for decades? I know, lunacy right?
Well, for one thing, I’ve seen some evidence that he’s voted for and sponsored some pretty kooky bills during his time in Congress. For another thing, there are things one can do as President that one can’t do as a member of Congress in our Executive-power-weighted system of government. There are lots of reasons why he wouldn’t have pushed the crazy parts of his agenda in Congress but would as President. That’s my point: I don’t know for sure that Paul would push the crazy part of his agenda in the White House or not. And neither do you. The question is whether it is a reasonable chance to take, that when made the most powerful man in the world, Paul won’t push the crazy parts of his agenda. History tells us, no, it is not a reasonable chance to take.
>>Oh sweet evil jebus. NOW Ron Paul is f-n Hitler? You have got to be kidding me, time to turn the channel.< < You'll note that I specifically said Ron Paul is NOT the same as Hitler. He obviously doesn't stand for the same things as Hitler, and I never said he did. You are deliberately mischaracterizing my post. But, once more, my point was that Hitler was an example of when people supported a leader based on the idea that he would only be able to implement the part of his agenda they liked, but would be restrained from implementing the part they thought was crazy. He wasn't. That is the same logic by which some people are supporting Ron Paul. History shows us that this it is a naive and dangerous assumption to make. >>Stop trying to suggest that he thinks the federal government should be banning evolution, or abortion. That’s not what he’s said ever. Why can’t the man hold different opinions than you personally? Why does your little world require complete adherence to everything you like?< < I specifically indicated that Paul does NOT want the federal government doing those things. He wants to roll back time to before the 14th Amendment and give the power to individual States to do those things. It doesn't really matter to most people if their rights are being curtailed by the Federal government or by the State government, and it certainly doesn't to me. Paul supporters claim to be about liberty and freedom, using Paul's agenda to restrict the power of the Federal government as their example, but they fail to mention that his plan won't necessarily make you, the individual, more free. It will only make you more free from interference of the Federal government. It will make you LESS free from interference from the State government. It's a shell game. He's claiming to get government out of peoples' lives, without making it clear he only means the Federal government. He doesn't make it clear that he wants the States to have MORE power to be in peoples' lives, and be LESS restricted by the Bill of Rights. In toto, I believe his plan will result in less freedom for the individual, and he conveniently leaves that out, as do his supporters. >>Good thing he isn’t running for your state government then isn’t it? I’m trying to imagine what this has to do with…well…anything. Oh right, it doesn’t.< < That's just dumb. If I have a right, under Federal law, to an abortion, for instance, and Paul comes along and is able to restrict the Federal government's power and make it a state-level issue, and the state I live in then bans abortion, it makes a BIG f'ing difference! He wants to take rights provided under Federal law and the Federal constitution and make them state-level issues. That means he wants to change what rights I have in this country, and that means it is relevant. Ending the guarantee of a right provided by the Constitution and Federal law and thus allowing that right to be taken away at the State level is a big change and is certainly relevant. Paul wants to make it so that the States can restrict rights that are now protected by the Federal government. That is absolutely relevant. I, like many, including most people who are actually libertarians, don't really care which level of government is restricting my rights. I care that my rights are restricted. Paul wants to make it possible for my rights to be restricted in ways they can't be now. That is relevant. >>No offense, but so does the constitution. It’s not like he’s making this up as he goes. This is how it’s supposed to work. If you don’t like that then your issue is with the Constitution, not Ron Paul.<< Yeah, sure, that was true before the 14th Amendment. But, guess what? We live in a post-14th Amendment world. The Constitution itself provides for how it can be amended. It was amended. That amendment is, therefore, now part of the Constitution. As such, the Constitution is not the problem here, it is Paul, and his desire to ignore the 14th Amendment and go back to an earlier draft of the Constitution which is, in itself, unconstitutional.
Exactly. Paul is not a libertarian in that sense, but instead a pre-14th Amendment strict constitutionalist. This explains, for example, how Paul can justify the suggestion of paying off slave owners, but not caring that the labour and liberty of said slaves was stolen, something which should surely outrage a true libertarian.
Mooglar said:
Ideally neither the Federal Government nor the State Governments should ban abortion or restrict any other individual freedom. Unfortunately real != ideal. In my opinion, both the powers of State Governments and the Federal Government should be reduced. Nevertheless it is a lot easier to leave a state with an onerous (and ultimately futile) abortion ban than it is to leave the country with an onerous abortion ban. It is also certainly better than getting a backalley abortion. However the government doesn’t have the striking power to stop abortions from being performed. If people want them, they will get them.
“Smiley-face” fascists are also present on the Right as well as on the Left. The abortion banners are a good example.
I said:
windy replied:
You maybe right, although it sounded like people here think that the human ape is above the rules of survival that all other animals are bound to. Perhaps I misread. After all, the traits that bind social groups together evolved because they enhanced the survival of most of the group’s members. Now here is a question, why is it usually more profitable to freely do commerce with the other person than it is to start a fight with him? To expand this further, why is it usually more profitable for a clan/tribe/nation to freely do commerce with the other clan/tribe/nation than to start a fight with it?
windy said:
That’s, if they want to kill me.
Hey, expat.
Keep onlooking.
Dumb Ass.
Incidentally Richard where do bonoboes fit into your killer ape theory?
They’re obviously the dirty hippies.
“Make love, not war, man!”
Posted by: Tulse | January 14, 2008 9:52 AM
But aren’t bonoboes smarter than chimps?
Hey, expat.
Keep onlooking.
Dumb Ass.
Posted by: Steve_C | January 14, 2008 10:41 PM
Psssst… hey, dumbass. Is it huMAN natURE that leaves you feeling that you just have to get the last word? Yeah, I thought so. Get a life, loser…
Methinks I spy a contradiction.
truth machine:
Perhaps I was being to simplistic. A more accurate term would be:
Given technological trends in the mid to late Twenty-First Century, the Nation-State is finished.
Ooops! Forgive my mispelling, I meant “too simplistic”.
That’s a very different claim. Perhaps it would be easier to evaluate if your “technological trends in the mid to late Twenty-First Century” link in #146 actually referred to whatever technological trends you have in mind.
truth machine:
Hmmm, I would assume that nation-states ceased to exist in the story-line of the Mad Max movies. I would say that the phrase, “it is usually more profitable to freely do commerce with the other person than fighting that other person” remains true within those movies and remains true whether nation-states exist or not. Anyway, in the movie Road Warrior, there was a character called Lord Humongous the Ayatollah of Rockin’ Rollah. You see, Lord Humongous and his minions wanted the oil from a settlement over an oil spigot (sound familiar?). Lord Humongous could have decided to trade for the oil from the spigot community and sold it to other communities at a profit and vice versa. After all, his associates roamed throughout the desert, he could be the middle-man. But he didn’t do that. Instead the Ayatollah of Rockin’ Rollah decided to invade the oil spigot community and ended up losing any chance of benefiting from that oil when they resisted (sound even more familiar? It should.).
Now, onto the “nation-state”.
I basically said or I meant to say:
If current technological trends continue into the mid to late Twenty-First Century,
then, the Nation-States eventually cease to exist. Perhaps by 2100.
So here is a question:
How does a Nation-State impose its will on its people?
truth machine, does the phrase “last argument of kings” mean anything to you?
What is it about libertarians using movies as evidence? Mad-frickin’-Max?!?!?!? Hell, why not bring up Dune while you’re at it?
Reading too much Ayn Rand seems to poison people’s reasoning centres.
Tulse:
I guess you’re too stupid to understand metaphors.
No, just too amused to take anyone seriously who uses Road Warrior as a guide to economic theory.
Tulse said:
I also don’t take anyone seriously who lacks reading comprehension.
Continuing on….
I asked earlier:
Onward to the Nation-State:
I’m sure I’m just slow — you want to re-read post #231 and then explain to me how that post isn’t essentially an argument about trends in the organization of political entities using a Mel Gibson action-sci-fi movie as the pivotal example?
Tulse said:
I didn’t mean to use that mad-max metaphor as a pivotal example. I actually meant it to be a metaphor for a real life event. You should have read earlier posts. Anyway, to help you guess what it represented, I will add even more highlights to it:
Anyway, continuing on.
I’ve stated earlier that if current technological trends in this Century continue, the Nation-State would eventually cease to exist. I think it would be mid to late Twenty-First Century. I heard others say 20 years from now but I think that’s too early. It could be much later than my own guess.
So first, one must discuss the Nation-State.
I would assume that nation-states ceased to exist in the story-line of the Mad Max movies.
Sigh. I don’t understand how people don’t see that such blatant fallacies are fallacies. Just because Mad Max entails the end of nation states doesn’t mean that the end of nation states entails Mad Max; sheesh.
I would say that the phrase, “it is usually more profitable to freely do commerce with the other person than fighting that other person” remains true within those movies and remains true whether nation-states exist or not.
The movie was fiction; it’s meaningless to talk about some maxim being true in it. But by your own retelling, the movie portrayed fighting, not free commerce. That’s why I said that your maxim contradicted your claim that technological trends would lead to Mad Max. This is rather straightforward, but I suspect not comprehendable to you.
If current technological trends continue into the mid to late Twenty-First Century,
I asked you to say what technological trends you are referring to; without that, you’re just wasting ink.
How does a Nation-State impose its will on its people?
You’re no Socrates; instead of asking stupid questions, just make your point.
On further thought, don’t bother; you’re too dim for me to waste further time on.
So historically inevitable forces will make the state “wither away”? It is profoundly ironic to see a libertarian make that claim.
After the end of Nation States, the City State will make a comeback, powered by a biologically renewable energy source. Discuss.
truth machine said:
You call me stupid yet you can’t answer easy questions such as, “How does a Nation-State impose its will on ‘its’ people?” and “What is meant by the term, ‘last argument of kings’?” Hint, they are very related. It would be a shame if I posted these same questions somewhere else and got correct answers. It would mean that you’re less intelligent than they are or just willfully ignorant.
If you can answer these, then we can go on to the next question:
By the way, using a side issue (problems with using Mad Max scenarios as metaphor for hollowed-out states or disintegrating states as well as choosing to either fight or trade) to distract from the real issue (the decline of the Nation-State or Central State) is a logical fallacy, hypocrite.
Tulse, your reading comprehension is really that bad.
Even with additional highlights to my retelling, you’re still unable to figure out what sort of real event it was representing. Even more, your poor reading comprehension is still present in post #242.
Don’t even bother to respond.
Robert, I honestly did get the allusion you were making the very first post, and again, it seems idiotic to equate current geopolitics to a Mel Gibson sci-fi action film. You would be taken more seriously if you just made your argument explicitly rather than resorting to making your point by analogy to rather cheesy ’80s movies. (Did you see the one woman’s aerobics outfit? Is that what the end of the nation-state is going to look like, a bad Duran Duran video ripoff?)
Whoa there, cowboy. You were the one who attempted to clarify the issue of what technological trends in the mid to late Twenty-First Century would lead to the demise of the nation-state by, in all apparent seriousness, citing a silly 1980’s Australian post-apocalyptic movies as some sort of evidence (as in “I would assume that nation-states ceased to exist in the story-line of the Mad Max movies. I would say that the phrase, “it is usually more profitable to freely do commerce with the other person than fighting that other person” remains true within those movies”). What tm and I (and even windy) have been doing is responding to your example, the only shred of specificity you have provided for your grand historical claims.
If you want to argue specific issues, then cite specific issues. If you want to cite current events, then cite specific current events, and identify their relevant features rather than hide behind coy allusions to them via bad Aussie sci-fi.
(And while your taking tm to task over famous phrases, perhaps you can do me the honour of identifying the name most associated with the notion that inevitable historical forces would cause the nation-state to wither away. As I said above, it’s pretty damned ironic that you seem to be pushing that position.)
Don’t be silly, this is way too much fun!
Tulse:
Why don’t you answer my two questions then to get this started:
I posted this on other blogs and the libertarians had no problem giving the correct answers. You have contempt for the libertarians yet you have a hard time answering the questions. They aren’t hard questions.
Tulse: To help your reading comprehension skills, figure out what “if” means.
I have posted these two questions on other sites and not one single collectivist could answer these to questions correctly.
Man, Robert, you seem to put a ton of weight on these simplistic libertarian phrases.
Let’s get the second out of the way. I’ll admit I had to Google the specific reference (it is the phrase that Louis XIV had stamped on his army’s cannons), but even prior to that the general gist was pretty clear, since libertarians are always about force. Oddly enough, however, they are also always about gun ownership, which presumably means that stamping “the last argument of libertarians” onto the barrel of handguns would also be apropos.
As for the first, the simplistic, pat libertarian answer is “force”. That, however, glosses over the fact that a) there are huge differences among states in the amount of coercion they use, b) in democracies, “its” people are the State, and so talking about the State imposing “its” will is rather misleading, c) in most modern democracies, individual liberties are not just, or even primarily, constrained by threat of force, but by such things as mutually-agreed goals and social convention.
Sure, the ultimate way the State enforces “its” will (which derives in democracies from the will of the people) is through force. But that is ultimately the way that all contracts are enforced, even in Libertopia. It is silly to claim that force is somehow inherently evil when libertarians are quite ready to resort to it when property is threatened, or contracts are violated. The issue is whether the people consent to the State having such power, whether they themselves make a social contract with the State (i.e., essentially with each other).
I don’t know why you feel these “questions” are so profound, or why you feel so triumphal when asking them. They are the basic stuff that libertarians always spew.
Good, you answered them Tulse. I never claimed using force as retaliation against initiation of force is “evil”.
Tulse said:
True.
Democracy is one of the checks against a state’s power.
Tulse said:
Here’s a question, what if individuals within a democratic Nation-State don’t have mutually-agreed goals and social conventions?
Tulse said:
You don’t have to be ashamed about it. It’s okay.
Then typically the majority’s desires are given preference, unless there is a constitutional reason to prevent that.
Tulse said:
So if the majority wants to place restrictions (initiate force) which the minority considers illegitimate (assuming no shared common values between the majority and the minority), how does the majority impose their will on a non-compliant minority? Through the violence of the “king’s cannon” of course. The constitutional checks on the Nation-State’s power (in the U.S., the checks consist of the Bill of Rights, rival branches of government, and rivalry between the Feds and the States) may prevent the initiation of violence by the Nation-State.
The term “king’s cannon” can be used to describe the striking power gap between the central government and networks of private individuals and groups. The rise in this striking power gap after the Middle Ages due to the invention of cannon (the central government can afford more cannons and ordnance than the nobles) gave rise to the modern Nation-State. The advent of modern conventional military and police ordnance in the Twentieth Century enabled the Nation-State to grow more centralized and stronger.
This leads to the next question. If a large nation-state with huge resources to field a large and well-trained/equipped army desires to invade a small nation-state that doesn’t have such conventional force, how would a small nation-state deter the larger nation-state from invading?
That’s an…”interesting”…historical thesis, and one that you don’t provide any evidence or references for. As some counter-evidence I’ll note, for example, that in France during the Middle Ages and later, the king was often less wealthy than many nobles — just being king didn’t mean you were the richest person. Also, nobles would often ally, and together could often muster a greater force, and greater wealth, than the king. The reason the king was obeyed was not just because he was wealthy or had a stronger military.
In any case, I doubt if the peasants under a noble gave a damn about cannons, and whether the nobles or king was in charge, since a mounted knight was effectively a tank against untrained foot soldiers. It appears this historical claim is more about how power is distributed and maintained among the ruling classes, since for an average citizen a noble was pretty much the “central government” that concerned him or her. This claim has little to do with modern concerns, or with private citizens as you’ve been addressing them.
Ask any ruler of a country who has been overthrown by the military how much control “kings” have over their “cannons” without some sort of social contract and traditions. It’s really not just about weapons, else someone in a nuclear missile silo would be president.
Um, by handing out F-22 fighters and M1 Abrams tanks to its citizens?
Jesus H. Cthulhu, I am so not going to get into a protracted back-and-forth on personal guns as civil defense, especially as I don’t view Red Dawn as some sort of documentary. The US in particular is, due to its geographic size and isolation, a rather unlikely target of invasion (as much as I love Canada, I doubt the Canadian army could hold Buffalo, much less the continental 48). And historically, in the modern era, I don’t know of any actual invasion (with the intent to hold territory) that was stopped by personally owned weapons. (There are plenty of examples of insurgencies and rebel armies supplied with military weapons, often by one of the superpowers, but that is a completely different kettle of fish.)
Robert, if you want to have a discussion on weapons, which is far afield from the original post, that’s fine, but you’ll have to find someone else to do it with, since I have little interest in going over that well-ploughed field. (If you’re going somewhere else with this line of argument, I’m willing to see where that is, but I certainly don’t want to devote my life to debating this thread.)
Of course there are exceptions. After all, there are examples of dictators in the twentieth century being overthrown by one their senior military officers. You also noted that having a common set of values (hint, hint) is also useful to hold a nation-state together. I agree. If it isn’t there, then there is just the “king’s cannon”.
You are also correct about past insurgencies. I also agree that the peasants had less striking power than the knights.
The reason why an individual in a nuclear missile silo can’t declare himself president is because he doesn’t have the key code and it takes an army of technicians to maintain nuclear warheads as it currently stands.
I asked earlier:
Tulse replied:
If the small nation-state doesn’t have a well-trained/equipped conventional force, its not going to have those equipment in the first place. So, how should the small nation-state deter the big nation-state assuming nobody is going to come to the small nation-state’s aid? Hint, you just mentioned it within your reply.
To help with the hint, I will mention some real world examples for the “big nation-state” and the “small nation-state”. The “big” U.S. was able to invade the “small” Iraq. But the “big” U.S. is deterred from invading the “small” Pakistan or the “small” North Korea. Why?
Robert, don’t bother hinting. I won’t play Socratic games with you. Make your argument so it can be debated, or just go away.
It’s quite simple, you’re trying to minimize the issue of the state monopoly on violence. It seems you want to avoid doubt in the State’s legitimacy.
So you’re saying I physically can’t pick up a rock and throw it at someone? Be more precise.
. It would be a shame if I posted these same questions somewhere else and got correct answers. It would mean that you’re less intelligent than they are or just willfully ignorant.
Having better things to do than engage in silly games with one of the vast number of morons on the internet would mean that I’m less intelligent than someone who does? That’s quite funny.
By the way, using a side issue (problems with using Mad Max scenarios as metaphor for hollowed-out states or disintegrating states as well as choosing to either fight or trade) to distract from the real issue (the decline of the Nation-State or Central State) is a logical fallacy, hypocrite.
A moron incapable of understanding his own citations.
truth machine:
It is ironic that a moron calls another person a moron. What are you afraid of, pansy?
Perry de Havilland was able to answer these easy questions in a matter of minutes. Even Tulse answered these questions, even though he/she tried to avoid any doubt in the legitimacy of the State and the monopoly on violence. It is pathetic that you are relying on a “red herring” to avoid the question altogether. Guess what “truth” machine, I don’t recognize your authority, limpwristed fuck. You’re afraid of the fucking question.
I don’t recognize your authority, limpwristed fuck.
Moron and homophobe.
truth machine said:
Oh really? Do you think all homosexuals are “limpwristed fucks”?
Why don’t you answer my questions, coward? Or do you think “coward” stands for homosexual?
Remember “truth” machine, I don’t recognize the legitimacy of your own set of values. What are you afraid of?
What are you afraid of about my questions?