The Opening Salvo of the Ron Paul Revolution
- Thread starter Azale
- Start date
Berzerker
Deity
well...
duh
and there's left wingers who think 9-11 was either an inside job or Bush and Cheney knew but let the attack happen so they could invade Iraq.
It's not a kaaf, it's a qaaf. al-Qā'idah.
IT'S WHATEVER I WANT IT TO BE
al's cater
Well, the his assembled literature leads me to believe he wasn't humming the Internationale and posting on soviet-empire.com
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
But despite all the contrary evidence, if he had happened to have a Communist Manifesto laying around as Patroklos claims to have, you know many from the far-right would be claiming he was a communist.
I don't, because I imagine I'd get bored reading it, and I do my best to avoid boredom.
My bookshelves are a pretty awful barometer of my ideology. I imagine if someone looked at what was on them they'd think I was a libretard.
Patroklos
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2003
- Messages
- 12,721
It s a pretty small book you can knock out in a hour or two, Das Capital own the other hand is brick and I haven't done more than browse due to the issues you mention and I do not own that.
That's the point though, most educated people probably have a wide mixture of books. It's probably complicated by the fact many people are interested in their opposites or left over from course studies.
That's the point though, most educated people probably have a wide mixture of books. It's probably complicated by the fact many people are interested in their opposites or left over from course studies.
Looks like someone is trying to explain away the Mapplethorpe in his collection.
Berzerker
Deity
hardcore muslims - and they're Chechen for god's sakes - aint fans of the commies, but the left has its share of conspiratorialists and they're getting a pass for their contributions to the paranoia
I'm not into false equivalency.
Berzerker
Deity
by attaching Ron Paul to Muslim terrorists?
Yeah, why make Muslim terrorists looks worse than they are?
Linkman226
#anarchy
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2007
- Messages
- 2,493
I don't get why liberals (a term I identify with) seem to be so damn outraged by Ron Paul. I don't care if a Paul presidency would send the U.S. economy to hell in a hand basket. I don't care if he made disparaging remarks against any race- hell, I wouldn't really even care if the n word was his favorite word. Despite all that, he is a god amongst fiends in the political world for advocating one extremely simple premise: it is unacceptable to wantonly disregard the Constitution, as both Republicans and Democrats continue to do on a regular basis. I don't care what a candidate's views are: the candidate that better supports the Constitution is always, 100%, the better candidate.
He also advocates another simple premise that is entirely omitted in most mainstream American political discourse: it is utterly and unforgivably immoral to bomb the everloving out of other countries and to support the regime of terror and imperialism across the world as America is doing today and has been doing for the better part of a century. Ron Paul's "soft" racism doesn't even begin to compare to the sheer wanton disregard for human life that constitutes American foreign policy decisions, which itself is a much "harder" brand of racism, because of its inability to digest and comprehend the idea that the darker skinned peoples of the world are in fact people with unique aspirations rather than terrorists who want to steal our freedom and deny us our Manifest Destiny of controlling the world's oil reserves.
He also advocates another simple premise that is entirely omitted in most mainstream American political discourse: it is utterly and unforgivably immoral to bomb the everloving out of other countries and to support the regime of terror and imperialism across the world as America is doing today and has been doing for the better part of a century. Ron Paul's "soft" racism doesn't even begin to compare to the sheer wanton disregard for human life that constitutes American foreign policy decisions, which itself is a much "harder" brand of racism, because of its inability to digest and comprehend the idea that the darker skinned peoples of the world are in fact people with unique aspirations rather than terrorists who want to steal our freedom and deny us our Manifest Destiny of controlling the world's oil reserves.
The point you don't understand is that Ron Paul disregards the Constitution far more than accuses others of doing so. His "strict construction" is a rejection of the Constitution as the Founding Fathers of the Constitution understood it (most of them, most of the time, at any rate. It tended to get complicated). Ron Paul's Constitution is not the Constitution of original intent, Paul's Constitution is the Constitution of the slavers who feared that the Constitution would eventually mean liberty for slaves. And later the Constitution of those who believed that it would mean liberty for the descendents of slaves.
Americans fought, suffered, even died, for generation after generation to gain the liberty that Paul's entire political philosophy is designed to take away from them. And Paul has the unmitigated gall to call himself a libertarian? He's no better than the slavers who's program he has adopted.
Americans fought, suffered, even died, for generation after generation to gain the liberty that Paul's entire political philosophy is designed to take away from them. And Paul has the unmitigated gall to call himself a libertarian? He's no better than the slavers who's program he has adopted.
I was equating American rightwing terrorists with Muslim terrorists. Not my fault some of those folks see Ron Paul as their intellectual leader.
1. I'm not a liberal
2. Ron Paul sucks
Linkman226
#anarchy
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2007
- Messages
- 2,493
Proof, Cutlass, proof. Ron Paul has never gone on record as supporting slavery, or anything even close to that. Even if I accept that he is racist, believing that some races are superior to others is not tantamount to believing slavery is morally acceptable, see: Abraham Lincoln. I would be inclined to think the blatant violations of the Bill of Rights by pretty much every administration in the past hundred or so years constitutes a far more grievous offense.
1. Or "leftists," which you certainly claim to be (see siggy)
2. Your argument is breathtaking in its persuasiveness.
Says the man that spends many posts (I counted three in a row last night) outlandishly charicaturing another poster.
It is my sincere hope you eventually step away from this cult and find a nice conservative, anarchist, or socialist set of values. American "libertarianism" offers you nothing.
I find your foreign policy beliefs mostly on the right track. There needs to be greater democratic accountability of American foreign policy, though this does not necessarily mean we sever all of our greater ambitions to world hegemony. America's economic and military power are too outsized to go "isolationist". We need to stop blowing up Yemeni villages, creating jihadi hellholes, bankrolling apartheid, and supporting atrocities across the globe though, yes.
I do not like your constitutional fetishism though. Just as often (more often) that document is used as a shield by the powerful against the people (or the powerless), and no scrap of paper is going to stop me from wanting to see justice carried out.
