The Opening Salvo of the Ron Paul Revolution

[hobbsyoyo]

So Ron Paul is a slaver now? You know the more outlandish the charicatures you have to invent to justify vileness of your rhetoric says something about you. It also degrade your message, or rather replaces it with guffaws of laughter.

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.

So are you two just going for the lowest-hanging fruit you can find or did you completely miss the point of Cutlass's post?

 

[Cutlass]

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.

I never claimed Paul was himself a racist, or that he supported slavery or Jim Crow. But that said, if Paul's policy was the law of the land, slavery and Jim Crow would be legal, and therefor exist.

No, my claim was that Paul supports the same policies that make it possible for slavery and Jim Crow to exist. And he supports the same policies that someone who wants slavery and Jim Crow to exist.

Now given that these policies only exist in the first place to support slavery and Jim Crow, how can you make the claim that these are "libertarian" policies? Because they absolutely are not. These are extraordinarily authoritarian policies that Paul wants. They are policies that were only ever dreamed up in the first place to crush liberty. And, do not forget, that other advocates of the same policies openly want to crush liberty.

So Paul is famous for some radically anti-liberty polices. And he allies himself with radically anti-liberty people to push those policies.

If someone was openly advocating the same polices that Hitler wanted, or Stalin, or Mao, you wouldn't think they were intending to achieve results dramatically different from what those leaders tried to achieve. Why do people assume that Paul can advocate the policies created by slavers and not want the outcomes that they wanted?

People fought, suffered, and died, fighting for the liberty of being freed from the tyranny of "states rights". Why would they willingly abandon that liberty now?

 

[Formaldehyde]

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.

As you are so fond of saying, it is obviously "irrelevant" to this discussion. Tsarnaev wasn't found in possession of a classic reference which can be found in the libraries of many people, supposedly even including yourself. Even though it is a book which would still cause him to likely be labeled as a "communist" or a "socialist" by the usual suspects for merely being in his possession. Instead, he was found with white supremacist and government conspiracy theory literature along with gun nut propaganda.

Says the man that spends many posts (I counted three in a row last night) outlandishly charicaturing another poster.

The phrase "double standard" seems to have little or no meaning with many right-wing authoritarians who continue to try to rationalize and defend the indefensible.

How much more "ridicule" do you think it will take before he stops making such inane posts about individuals, instead of even trying to discuss the topic?

 

[Patroklos]

I never claimed Paul was himself a racist, or that he supported slavery or Jim Crow. But that said, if Paul's policy was the law of the land, slavery and Jim Crow would be legal, and therefor exist.

That's funny, since slavery was ended by a Constitutional amendment. Do you have any proof that he opposes those? Isn't that in fact the method of changing the law he is all about?

 

[Linkman226]

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.

I consider myself a socialist and an anarchist. I just think Paul is the better of many evils. I am of the belief that America's foreign policy is in more need of change than any other aspect of America's political apparatus, and therefore, I will support any candidate that will enforce a more benevolent foreign policy mechanism.

As for my so-called constitutional fetishism, I don't even like the Constitution all that much. It was written by a land owning slaver elite to serve this self same elite. But it is necessarily superior to allowing politicians the power to roam unchecked. You can not honestly deny that there are many necessary and important protections guaranteed by the Constitution. Therefore I consider constitutional fetishism to be superior to constitutional disregard, even if a rewriting of the Constitution would be the optimal solution.

I never claimed Paul was himself a racist, or that he supported slavery or Jim Crow. But that said, if Paul's policy was the law of the land, slavery and Jim Crow would be legal, and therefor exist.

No, my claim was that Paul supports the same policies that make it possible for slavery and Jim Crow to exist. And he supports the same policies that someone who wants slavery and Jim Crow to exist.

Incorrect. There are now constitutional measures that prohibit slavery. In fact, many of these measures (the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments) were around when Jim Crow existed as well; however their enforcement was weak. That has thus changed. Therefore Jim Crow and the Constitution are incompatible.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Pretty sure Ron Paul is in favor of rolling back enforcement of as many amendments as possible to give the free market freedom to do what it wants, up to and explicitly including Jim Crow.

 

[Linkman226]

Pretty sure Ron Paul is in favor of rolling back enforcement of as many amendments as possible to give the free market freedom to do what it wants, up to and explicitly including Jim Crow.

It's unimportant what amendments he wants to roll back. Even as president, he would lack the capacity to do so.

That's assuming I take your word for it. To my knowledge, he hasn't advocated any such thing. Feel free to prove me wrong of course.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I'm not saying he wants to roll back amendments, he wants to roll back enforcement of them that he views as unconstitutional, such as laws that prohibit Jim Crow because free market rah rah rah. He's on record having said such things, I'm not going to do your research on your icon for you.

 

[Cutlass]

Incorrect. There are now constitutional measures that prohibit slavery. In fact, many of these measures (the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments) were around when Jim Crow existed as well; however their enforcement was weak. That has thus changed. Therefore Jim Crow and the Constitution are incompatible.

You are missing the point. When someone wants the same policies as people who are the enemies of liberty, how is this person a libertarian? When someone wants the same constitutional interpretation as people who hate liberty, how is this person a libertarian? When someone wants a constitutional interpretation that the majority of the framers of the Constitution rejected, how is that person a constitutional originality or strict constructionist?

Ron Paul wants states rights. People who hate liberty and want to rape it away from innocent people want states rights. Now either Paul hates liberty, or Paul is an utter idiot about how to go about getting liberty.

Either way, the people who have fought for liberty have an enemy in Ron Paul.

When people who want the opposite outcome from you do want the same policies to achieve that outcome that you do, anyone with a brain really needs to rethink what they are are for, and give those policies a really close look. States rights has always been an anti-liberty policy with an anti-liberty outcome. "Strict construction" of the constitution has always been an anti-liberty policy with an anti-liberty outcome.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Ron Paul wants states rights. People who hate liberty and want to rape it away from innocent people want states rights. Now either Paul hates liberty, or Paul is an utter idiot about how to go about getting liberty.

Well, if you're seriously going to persue this line of argumentation, the Nazis opposed state rights. People who want to exterminate inferior people want to demolish states rights. Now either you're a Nazi, or you idiotically endorse Nazi policies.

 

[Dachs]

Well, if you're seriously going to persue this line of argumentation, the Nazis opposed state rights. People who want to exterminate inferior people want to demolish states rights. Now either you're a Nazi, or you idiotically endorse Nazi policies.

The Nazis didn't really oppose state rights specifically, but rather institutionalization of any power, whether under the aegis of the State or the state.

 

[ParkCungHee]

The Nazis didn't really oppose state rights specifically, but rather institutionalization of any power, whether under the aegis of the State or the state.

Well yeah, that and any sort of power structure independent of the party, such as the Prussian and Bavarian state apparatus. But that sort of nuance can lead to confusion. We need to line people up on the sides of Freedom and Not-Freedom.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

You are missing the point. When someone wants the same policies as people who are the enemies of liberty, how is this person a libertarian? When someone wants the same constitutional interpretation as people who hate liberty, how is this person a libertarian? When someone wants a constitutional interpretation that the majority of the framers of the Constitution rejected, how is that person a constitutional originality or strict constructionist?

Ron Paul wants states rights. People who hate liberty and want to rape it away from innocent people want states rights. Now either Paul hates liberty, or Paul is an utter idiot about how to go about getting liberty.

Either way, the people who have fought for liberty have an enemy in Ron Paul.

When people who want the opposite outcome from you do want the same policies to achieve that outcome that you do, anyone with a brain really needs to rethink what they are are for, and give those policies a really close look. States rights has always been an anti-liberty policy with an anti-liberty outcome. "Strict construction" of the constitution has always been an anti-liberty policy with an anti-liberty outcome.

Now I've got a mental image of Ron Paul with his pants around his ankles, giving it hard to the poor statue of liberty.

Where's the brain bleach?

 

[Cutlass]

Now I've got a mental image of Ron Paul with his pants around his ankles, giving it hard to the poor statue of liberty.

Where's the brain bleach?

My work here is done.

 

[Linkman226]

I'm not saying he wants to roll back amendments, he wants to roll back enforcement of them that he views as unconstitutional, such as laws that prohibit Jim Crow because free market rah rah rah. He's on record having said such things, I'm not going to do your research on your icon for you.

Again even if that's the case his foreign policy views clearly outweigh that especially when you consider that his ability as President to unenforce said amendments would be much less than his ability to follow the amendments our current administrations are wantonly violating, as well as his ability to stop raping the Third World.

You are missing the point. When someone wants the same policies as people who are the enemies of liberty, how is this person a libertarian? When someone wants the same constitutional interpretation as people who hate liberty, how is this person a libertarian? When someone wants a constitutional interpretation that the majority of the framers of the Constitution rejected, how is that person a constitutional originality or strict constructionist?

Ron Paul wants states rights. People who hate liberty and want to rape it away from innocent people want states rights. Now either Paul hates liberty, or Paul is an utter idiot about how to go about getting liberty.

Either way, the people who have fought for liberty have an enemy in Ron Paul.

When people who want the opposite outcome from you do want the same policies to achieve that outcome that you do, anyone with a brain really needs to rethink what they are are for, and give those policies a really close look. States rights has always been an anti-liberty policy with an anti-liberty outcome. "Strict construction" of the constitution has always been an anti-liberty policy with an anti-liberty outcome.

Jim Crow activists have traditionally used the the idea of state's rights to pursue their goals, but that doesn't inherently imply the reverse is true (see ParkCungHee's comments.) Anyways I couldn't give a damn whether a politician believes in states rights or not. That's not what sets Ron Paul apart, as I think I have expressed a good number of times already.

Now I've got a mental image of Ron Paul with his pants around his ankles, giving it hard to the poor statue of liberty.

Where's the brain bleach?

They would make adorable babies.

 

[Berzerker]

I'm not into false equivalency.

I was equating American rightwing terrorists with Muslim terrorists. Not my fault some of those folks see Ron Paul as their intellectual leader.

What Muslim terrorists cited Ron Paul - as opposed to say, Muhammed or "Allah" or fellow Islamic radicals - as their intellectual leader? You're using the fact some nasty people dont like US foreign (or domestic) policy to attack Ron Paul because he doesn't like some of these policies either. But you give a pass to everyone else who doesn't like US foreign policy.

 

[Azale]

What Muslim terrorists cited Ron Paul - as opposed to say, Muhammed or "Allah" or fellow Islamic radicals - as their intellectual leader? You're using the fact some nasty people dont like US foreign (or domestic) policy to attack Ron Paul because he doesn't like some of these policies either. But you give a pass to everyone else who doesn't like US foreign policy.

"Those folks" = rightwing American terrorists

Other than that, I'm not going to try and clear up the rest of this again. Believe whatever you want.

 

[Berzerker]

Which Muslim terrorists cited Ron Paul as their intellectual leader?

 

[Cutlass]

Jim Crow activists have traditionally used the the idea of state's rights to pursue their goals, but that doesn't inherently imply the reverse is true (see ParkCungHee's comments.) Anyways I couldn't give a damn whether a politician believes in states rights or not. That's not what sets Ron Paul apart, as I think I have expressed a good number of times already.

No, several other things set Paul apart. His opposition to liberty just makes him a standard reactionary conservative. He is different from other reactionary conservatives in other respects. But he remains a reactionary conservative. What he is not, and has never been, is an advocate of liberty.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Ron Paul is in favor of liberty compared to most other members of the far-right. Late 2012 presidential primaries:



But compared to other libertarians he is clearly found to be lacking based on many of these "states rights" policies.

There is a general trend that is quite visible if you plot enough data points. Liberals tend to be more libertarian than conservatives are, while conservatives are typically far more authoritarian:



2008 presidential primaries: