Property Rights! Property Rights!
Paleoconservatives are crazed lunatics and Neo-conservatives are crazed lunatics. Take your pick.
Posted by euzoius at December 27, 2007 05:37 AMRon Paul will win whether he is the Republican candidate or Independent. By a landslide.
Posted by Dirk at December 27, 2007 06:21 AMRon Paul will win whether he is the Republican candidate or Independent. By a landslide.
If his supporters put up enough of those "Google Ron Paul" banners on highway overpasses he might just!
[rolls eyes]
Posted by snark at December 27, 2007 06:41 AMDon’t know, Turkana, but about other countries facing out slavery without need for a civil war Paul is right on the money.
I guess the fact he brings an icon like Lincoln to make his point is hard to swallow—I believe that the man’s heart was in the right place—but the end result that Paul addresses is obvious. That far too many innocent beings died during that dire struggle.
Either way, racism hasn’t been totally eradicated everywhere, as should, but must say that I see less in Europe than I see here. Indeed, and if I had any doubt about this very thing, one person in charge of teaching at my tiny granddaughter’s pre-pre kindergarten (attached to one of the oldest schools in the country and, religious, no less) would have taken care of this wee thing in a bloody jiffy.
Suffice to say that after finding out few pertinent things via the mouth of our babe, right now we are looking for another pre-pre kindergarten for her.
PAZ
You seem to twist everything Ron Paul has to say to meet your opinion.
Let me ask you then, "Which of these other fine, honest Politicians are you recommending to lead this country out of the absolute disaster we are in?"
Posted by Concerned American at December 27, 2007 06:52 AMquidam-
so sorry about the little one! wow!
as for paul and the civil war- the point is that lincoln wanted to try that method, but it was the south that refused. paul blames lincoln for having started the war. not exactly an orthodox view of the facts- except in certain circles. and not exactly a factual one, either.
Posted by Turkana at December 27, 2007 06:54 AMum. concerned american- his words speak for themselves.
Posted by Turkana at December 27, 2007 06:56 AMok. he's nuts. but that only matters if he is more dangerously nuts than the other candidates. is he?
disclaimer - i don't support paul, but i don't think he's the problem. the problem, imo, are that we are letting our candidates get away with their support for an imperialistic foreign policy, an insane and racist drug war and subversion of constitutional protections.
every time i see a post calling paul out without applying the same standards to our ow candidates, i tend to take the post as a statement of partisanship and less one of analysis.
Posted by selise at December 27, 2007 06:56 AMselise- on global warming, all the dem candidates support the scientific "gold standard" of an 80% emissions reduction by 2050. paul's not sure it's even happening. note the difference?
Posted by Turkana at December 27, 2007 06:58 AMLincoln didn’t go to war to “get rid of the original intent of the republic.”
In order to understand history you must know the simple facts of history and be able to come to logical conclusions regarding those facts. Lincoln went to war in order to preserve the union. However, by doing this he broke with the original intent of the republic - the confederacy of states known as the United States - which was liberty from tyranny and freedom from centralized government. Lincoln made a clearly un-American call, and his being president didn't make it the "American" thing to do. Lincoln made the wrong decision. He could have saved lives, money, and infrastructure by simply purchasing the slaves freedom. However, freedom from slavery is NOT Lincoln's priority, and dozens of top notch historians have proven the point. He went to war because it was the only way to bring the southern states back "in line" (slavery) with the union.
Just recently the Lakota peoples of the northern midwest reclaimed their independence and broke all treaties with the United States. Will Bush declare war on the natives in order to "preserve" the union? I hope not.
"a position that was part of the Republican Party (Paul’s party) platform"
How amazingly irrelevant.
"The South, though, decided that rather than abide by the results of the election, they would secede from the country "
And they had every right to do this. Lincoln proved to be a tyrant, using the iron fist of military in order to take liberty away from others. (Keep in mind that I'm not defending the south, they had their own iron fist used to keep their slaves 'in line'.) Essentially Lincoln wanted to enslave the southern states to the union.
"They, not Lincoln, put the resolution of the slavery issue through the political process out of reach."
This is only true if one assumes the impossibility of alternative methods of freeing the slaves - methods used in nearly every other slave holding country in the world. The political process is not the only method through which men are freed. Imagine if over time men's minds were changed through the teaching of the Churches (which was becoming increasingly anti-slavery) or through public discourse...? Wow, imagine that, a peaceful means to securing freedom. Those of you who love violence as a means of conflict resolution cannot force yourselves to see the benefit of peaceful means.
"Paul gets history exactly backwards"
No, sir. You do.
"It's just wrong for the federal government to protect people from it."
Damn right. The federal government should not be the morality police. The federal government should not go around inspecting peoples minds like a bunch of thought police. If you don't like someone, for some reason, the government doesn't have the right to tell intervene and tell you that you should give them access to you property. This is simply absurd. It's a property rights, and contract issue. But that would be asking you to think in terms of the context in which our constitution was written.
If you would just read some history outside of what they shove down your throat in university you would know that Paul's positions have been held by many respectable scholars. Furthermore, if you would do a little more research you might learn of the real power behind the civil rights amendment in congress, the womens lib movement, the global warming movement, etc. They all have something in common...their founders and backers are not who you might expect - they're the same damn people who brought us Bush and "his" wars.
Posted by truthnewsnow at December 27, 2007 07:46 AMum, truthnews? you're too stupid to waste much time on, but you're even wrong about the irrelevancies you introduce to buttress your inanities.
about that lakota secession? sorry.
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011557.php#011557
Posted by Turkana at December 27, 2007 08:06 AMHey, try doing this for a change... I know it will be hard for you, because analysis is not your field of expertise... but here it goes --
Apply the same type of "analysis" to all the candidates. When you take the microscope off of Dr. Paul and put it on the other candidates -- many of whom are active members of the pro-war and pro-North American Union CFR and Bilderberg groups -- those other candidates look far, far worse than Dr. Paul.
Dr. Paul is not perfect, but he's not interested in war for profit, the destruction of the US dollar and your retirement savings, or the loss of American sovereignty, like the other candidates are... those are HUGE issues, IMO.
Analyze THAT.
Posted by Syd at December 27, 2007 08:12 AMImagine if over time men's minds were changed through the teaching of the Churches (which was becoming increasingly anti-slavery) or through public discourse...?
Followed up by;
But that would be asking you to think in terms of the context in which our constitution was written.
So you are appealing to the ability of people's minds and thinking to evolve but in the next breath falling back on an anti-living document argument relative to the Constitution that relies on interpreting the Constitution as an 18th century white male would have interpreted it.
I believe that's called 'having it both ways'.
Posted by snark at December 27, 2007 08:13 AMTurkana, I agree w/ truthnews. You disagree with him, so you call him too stupid to waste time on.
Conclusion: You're a hack and a bully and a pompous prick.
I'm out.
Posted by MaskedVigilante at December 27, 2007 08:18 AMhi, syd. wow- the paulbots are out in all their glory. fwiw- none of the other candidates think lincoln started the civil war, none would have voted against the civil rights act, and none deny global warming and evolution. you're right paul's not perfect- he's nuts. and even someone who's nuts can be right, now and then. but he's still nuts. thank you for playing.
Posted by Turkana at December 27, 2007 08:19 AMaww, masked vigilante- nice name, btw. have fun seceding with russell means.
Posted by Turkana at December 27, 2007 08:21 AMI'm out.
Best news of the day, imo.
Posted by snark at December 27, 2007 08:22 AMHi Turkana... wow, the con-tard bots are blogging in their full glory this morning! That means you, Turkana.
So, what's it like to be supporting candidates who are members of Rockefeller's private pro-war and pro-North American thinktank, the CFR? Does it pay well for you to be supporting them in your blog?
What's it like to point your microscope at Dr. Paul and examine the pimples on his ass, when your Hillary, Romney, and Giuliani are clearly representatives of the world elite, such as the Bilderberg elite?
Your analysis is like counting a river for fish when the river is made of oil. Did you forget the river is made of oil? Look at the overall level of corruption amongst the people you seem to be supporting, sometime.
Open your eyes. Or "just say no" to that neocon paycheck you seem to be addicted to. Karma is real, friend. It all comes back to you, sooner or later. Screwing your fellow Americans by working to support corrupt politicans is very unethical. Or does that matter to someone like you, who has lost his/her soul?
Posted by Debra at December 27, 2007 08:31 AMPaul's supporters aren't doing much to improve my opinion of him here today.
But I guess you take what you can get, eh?
Posted by snark at December 27, 2007 08:36 AMdebra- what i love about you paulbots is that you don't actually bother to even try to explain his lunatic ramblings. but you're probably no more wedded to science and reality than is he.
Posted by Turkana at December 27, 2007 09:06 AMI can't think of a more evil act to commit in this world than to blog in support of clearly corrupt politicans, while at the same time nit-picking at politicans who have not been purchased by the corrupt elites.
You can't hide from your own Karma. Spin it any way you want to. That's some heavy duty negativity you have weighing upon your own soul. Not my soul -- but yours.
Something to think about... especially if you can't sleep at night, or if you aren't happy to be alive. I honestly don't know how you can live with yourself and look at yourself in the mirror each day.
Posted by David at December 27, 2007 09:11 AMdavid- um- nitpicking? so racism is nitpicking. denial of science and history is nitpicking. i'd love to know what you think is important. other than your delusions.
Posted by Turkana at December 27, 2007 09:14 AMTurkana --
This conversation is really one you need to have with yourself, and no one else. What kind of energy do you bring into this world? Who are you? What is your purpose here in this lifetime?
Do you choose the light, or the dark? Corruption, or integrity? This is your choice, alone.
"Do not be enticed by that soft smoky light of hell." ~ Tibetan Book of the Dead
Posted by David at December 27, 2007 09:20 AMgee, david- thanks!
by debunking a lunatic like ron paul, i think i'm siding with honesty, truth, reality, and humanity. thanks again for your concern!
Posted by Turkana at December 27, 2007 09:24 AMIsn't telling someone they have negativity issues negative in itself?
Here we are talking about historical events and this guy wants to diagnose what's wrong with someone else's soul! Is this what we have to look forward to from a Ron Paul presidency?
Posted by snark at December 27, 2007 09:27 AMsnark-
the most fascinating aspect to the paulbots is the way they echo his disconnect from reality. they never respond to the substance. they never try to explain why someone who is, at the very least, so consistently factually wrong, should be taken seriously. it's a cult.
Posted by Turkana at December 27, 2007 09:31 AMTurkana,
Ignoring the other candidates' ties to the CFR or Bilderberg makes it clear your analysis is not objective. By ignoring the truth of the other 2008 candidates, you create negative karma for yourself.
Posted by David at December 27, 2007 09:32 AMyes, david. conspiracy theories matter. science and history don't.
Posted by Turkana at December 27, 2007 09:35 AMRichardson is also against the war and would probably do more than Paul to get the troops out.
www.pafundi.com
Number of Operations Iraq Freedom and Enduring Freedom casualties as confirmed by U.S. Central Command: 4351
The ego has an infinite number of ways to hide from itself, doesn't it? Your responses make this clear.
When truth, integrity, and spiritual matters of the soul are something to criticize, that's when you know you have taken the wrong path.
Posted by David at December 27, 2007 09:37 AMted-
absolutely. richardson promises a complete pullout. dodd has also been very aggressive, with his attempts to force a firm pullout date. and both of them have the added benefit of understanding that global warming matters. and no known history of racist comments, historical revisionism, or ties to racist organizations. not that any of that matters to the paulbots...
Posted by Turkana at December 27, 2007 09:38 AMdavid-
when you can address paul's denial of global warming and evolution, plus his complete historical revisionism about the start of the civil war, we can begin to talk about truth. as for matters of the soul- i wasn't aware that bigotry was soulful.
keep trying.
Posted by Turkana at December 27, 2007 09:40 AMIt's so unfair! Puttin' "Dr Paul" under a microscope and all, unlike ALL the other candidates----that just isn't gonna happen when Dr. Paul wins the nomination!
Does Dr Paul believe in Karma as well? Anything but global warming apparently.....sheesh.
We're so stuffed with insane authoritarian, militarist, constitution-denouncing Repubs that we're expected to pull our punches for a conservative dingbat like Paul because he can read the clauses involving the war power. Sorry, gang.
Posted by euzoius at December 27, 2007 09:42 AM"I can't think of a more evil act to commit in this world than to blog ..."
Can't think of anything more evil than blogging? Sure, words matter and can be used to hurt those who don't deserve it or more than an individual deserves. But really, nothing more evil than blogging about a politician?
Maybe I have spent too much time watching and reading the news and reading history books. I can think of a lot of acts worse than blogging.
Hyperbole can be effective, but sometimes it just makes one's arguement sound suspect.
I'm sorry for being nit-picky, but with so much wrong in the world, with so many real evil acts being committed daily, this bit of hyperbole just grates on me. Maybe Turkana is being unfair (I don't think so, tho I suppose it is possible), but calling his blogging the most evil act in the world just doesn't help arguing that point.
jen-
perspective is not one of the paulbots's strong points...
Heh, the paulbots remind me of the Movementarians from the Simpsons. I betcha if we got a picture of David, he'd have those psychadelic swirly things for eyes!
Oh dear, I suppose my karma's gonna suffer now for laughing at the silly zombies. But thanks, Turkana for putting up the trollbait post. Just like Candyman, all you have to do is say RP's name, and the bees come abuzzing. Comedy gold, I tell ya!
Posted by iamcoyote at December 27, 2007 12:06 PMWatch Zeitgeist and wake the F up.
http://zeitgeistmovie.com/
WOW! Evidently one cannot have his own opinion on Ron Paul, or at least a negative one. Jeez you guys, cut Turkana some slack. It's his opinion and he's entitled to it. (Of course, I will not take this advice myself when it comes to our resident trolls).
Posted by Judith at December 27, 2007 02:47 PM....on surface Ron Paul seemed to be a level headed "stop the war guy" but on closer inspection: "his knuckles touch the ground when he walks"....rejected!..Huckelberry is kookier but all the same....where do these people come from...no shame in any of them....Homer Simpson for Prez...gets my vote!!
Posted by Goyo at December 27, 2007 04:33 PMCall him nuts if you want, but it just shows your ignorance. Ron Paul is RIGHT on the war, on Lincoln, on global warming being a hoax...etc...He has more money than God!
You can support the status quo but you are just helping to oppress yourself and others.
Goyo, it's YOUR knuckles that drag -- you haven't offered one scintilla of factual information to support that name calling.
None of your criticisms are based in any facts and thus are dismissed as emotionalistic brainwashed nothingness.
Posted by NH at December 27, 2007 05:12 PMWOw Turkana is REALLY nuts
"...we're expected to pull our punches for a conservative dingbat like Paul because he can read the clauses involving the war power."
We wouldn't have to if you could point out even ONE Democrat that voted against the Iraq War Resolution. Clinton, Edwards, Dodd and Biden ALL VOTED IN FAVOR. Obama and Richardson were not in a position to vote but "claimed" they were opposed.
Posted by skeptic at December 27, 2007 06:13 PMnh- thanks for making my point!
Posted by Turkana at December 27, 2007 06:25 PMDr. Paul represents those of us who see zero difference between the Republicans and Democrats. They both supported the war. Democrats just voted to continue to fund it. They have failed. Hillary or Rudy or Mitt or whoever. All corporate shills.
Dr. Paul is also right about global warming.
As the evidence continues to mount that Global Warming is a complete hoax, the Democrats will just spin right back to the Next Ice Age like they were claiming in the 70’s. There is a lot of $$$$$ at stake here and they won’t give up on their global extortion for re-distribution wealth plan. After all, that’s what this is all about. Known and documented warming & cooling cycles are due to that thing called the “SUN.”
Posted by at December 27, 2007 07:45 PMPaul is right about Lincoln, and it's correct that Lincoln went to war to "preserve the union." This is what Paul is saying. It's just that "preserve the union" sounds noble, whereas "get rid of the original intent of the republic" sounds damning. And it should be damning.
Why shouldn't the south have been able to secede from the union if they so dramatically disagreed with its policies? Everyone forgets that in the 19th century, the people in the north did not like black people any more than the southerners did. There were a lot of terrible, racist, white people in this country. But the people in the north did not depend economically on a free labor source as some southerners did.
If the issue hadn't been slavery, or economics wrapped in slavery, or anything that is so distasteful today, would the civil war be viewed in the same light?
There is no doubt that the civil war strengthened the power of the federal government, and took power away from the states. In Paul's view, and in the view of those Americans who believe we should still follow our Constitution today, the federal government should not rule over state governments, no matter how much a Georgian might disagree with how New Jersey chooses to govern itself.
What is so noble about strengthening the federal government's power? Yes, in the civil war, this power grab allowed the government to do some good. But do not forget that a government with the power to do good has equal ability to commit evil in the hands of the wrong person.
This is what us libertarians fear, and what causes so much concern amongst many liberal-minded individuals in the context of the Bush presidency. If the terrorist threat were truly as great as Bush and his administration seem to project, and if the deaths of millions of Americans were prevented as a result of listening to phone calls without warrants and torturing suspects, perhaps he would earn the accolades of future generations. And maybe he would help lay the groundwork for a sinister political force twenty years from now, one that would use his noble accomplishments and good intentions to turn this country into a tyrannical state.
And sure, it may never happen. It is possible that the American people would never succumb to fear, never let their guard down, and never bow to a dictator. But there is always that uncertainty, the moment of chaos where all bets are off. This is the wager that libertarians find so unpalatable. Lincoln and all his good intentions do not change the fact that he brought us just that much closer to tyranny.
Lincoln ended slavery, but in the process he made Americans less free. I want all Americans, black, white, or whatever, to enjoy the same liberties that rich white people had a right to before the civil war. I want an America that is more free than it has ever been before, and not one that serves our current perceived roll. And I want this to happen before someone far more terrible than Bush takes the reigns of this nation.
Posted by Alex at December 27, 2007 10:47 PMalex- here's your first clue: paul suggests lincoln could have avoided the war by trying the compensation approach. he did. the south seceded. unless you think the south had a right to secede- and i'm sure many paulbots do- then, lincoln had no choice.
Posted by Turkana at December 27, 2007 11:11 PMTurkana, Paul implies that the North should have left the south secede. The right to secede would have made Lincoln to engage diplomatically in such a way that they wouldn't decide to secede.
Do you suggest that 600 000 men had to die just because someone liked the particular form of government? Just wonder if you would support killing people if Spain decided to secede from EU?
Posted by andy at December 28, 2007 12:28 AMandy-
more historical revisionism. the south began to secede before lincoln could do anything. the very concept of giving up slavery was anathema to them. do a little homework and you'll even discover that they began to secede before lincoln was even inaugurated!
Posted by Turkana at December 28, 2007 02:20 AMyou know when the only thing the socialists have on paul is how he feels about the civil war, as if it mattered, they are grasping at straws. but people are stupid enough to let things like his matter. and oh yeah he's really a nazi, sieg heil! fuckin idiots...
Posted by brian at December 28, 2007 02:40 AMseriously what a great fucking president he would be but the socialists and neocons hate him.
Posted by brian at December 28, 2007 02:49 AMyes, brian- once again you demonstrate the intellectual sophistication of the paulbot mentality. all we "socialists" have on him is his ignorance about the civil war. i didn't write anything about his general denial of science, nor his curiously repetitive pattern of aligning himself with racists. nah.
Posted by Turkana at December 28, 2007 02:53 AMhe didnt deny global warming per say. The man is more thoughtful than all the other candidates combined. If you can't see his intellectual honesty and logic you deserve more of the same old morally corrupt government with its rightful sub-30% approval rating.
Posted by brian at December 28, 2007 04:21 AMkucinich and gravel aint gonna win and all the other shills are just as corrupt as bush
Posted by brian at December 28, 2007 04:25 AMyes, brian- he's an honest bigot, and he's intellectually honest about not understanding history or science.
Posted by Turkana at December 28, 2007 04:30 AMWait a minute. What is so lunatic about repeating the standard argument that Lincoln abrogated the rights of states to secede from the union anytime they wanted? You do not have to be pro-slavery to affirm that states do have that right.
Please read "The Constitution in Exile" to see that Ron Paul is just operating on a higher intellectual level than those who need to be so politically correct as to say Lincoln needs to be worshipped as a God.
Now you Neocons have to finally face the music that you AGREE with the Democrats on too many things these days. Whether you are against "racism" or "anti-feminism" or the horrible "terrorists" who refused to let Hillary's best friend become president of Pakistan, you Neocons do the Democrats' bidding and you are NOT going to be allowed to have another fake-Republican president in 2009.
Posted by Jim Peterson at December 28, 2007 04:30 AMhis main point was only that other countries got rid of slavery without killing so many people, jesus. yeah he's a bigot, you fucking full of shit, you deserve another shitty president.
Posted by brian at December 28, 2007 04:42 AMum, jim. states do not have the right to secede:
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0074_0700_ZO.html
as for the rest of your hysterics: no one said lincoln was god, no one here is a neocon, and hillary's best friend was never a candidate to become president of pakistan. thank you for playing.
Posted by Turkana at December 28, 2007 04:46 AMawww, brian- sorry your attempts to think make your brain hurt. his point was that lincoln forced the war. he did not. the south did. keep trying.
Posted by Turkana at December 28, 2007 04:48 AM....this nutbar has a Sun Moon type of following...and NH: this is simple stuff...science trumps religion....the earth is billions of years old, not thousands.....one's opinions on Lincoln are irrelevant....but the US has been at the forefront of medical breakthroughs....it cannot afford to have a neanderthal at the controls like it has had for the last 7 years. Paul is pandering to the right and as a doctor he knows better...Have some more kool aid paulbots!!
Posted by Goyo at December 28, 2007 08:36 AMPaulbotism appears to have a very, very strong dose of global warming denial. Polls indicate that fewer than 20% of Americans now deny the existence and cause of global warming, despite worthless anti-science "leaders" like Paul.
I guess it's another thing for "Dr Paul" to be proud of---continued misleading ignorant twits about an impending, irreversible environmental catastrophe. A real feather in the New South's kiwi cap.....always standing in the way of every necessary action, what a boon to the nation.
Posted by euzoius at December 28, 2007 11:04 AMhttp://rawstory.com/rawreplay/index.php?p=356
heres more. not trying to convince anybody on this subject,
Posted by brian at December 28, 2007 03:26 PMcongratulations, brian- in that entire interview, paul never addresses the one basic fact that he had absolutely wrong: lincoln didn't start the war, the south did. i know it's hard for you, but that's reality. sorry.
Posted by Turkana at December 28, 2007 09:01 PMcool, i dont give a shit about the civil war, it's over.
Posted by brian at December 28, 2007 10:48 PMyes, brian. we know. you don't care if a republican candidate has a clue. you don't care about science. you see what you want to see and believe what you want to believe, and ron paul walks on winged slippers sprinkling magic dust and the gospel of materialism, ignorance, and tolerance for bigots.
Posted by Turkana at December 29, 2007 12:42 AMRon Paul is also a radical, even rabid, anti-abortionist.
Posted by bernarda at December 29, 2007 02:51 AMDemocrats have only themselves to blame if people like me will vote for Ron Paul.
Bad behavior does not warrant support.
Posted by Tom Paine at December 29, 2007 09:43 PMha i dont care about science? i have a degree in biology. Id rather he believed in evolution, but frankly id rather have a president who doesnt than a president who believes in redistribution of wealth and government handouts for the lazy, and stealing from people who make an honest living and giving to people too inept to find a good job. but you as a socialist, im sure would disagree.
i do feel bad for poor people and think they would prosper much more under a president like paul, than a socialist where they are given everything.
dont get me wrong the system we have no isnt working but it is not a true free market.
Posted by brian at December 30, 2007 02:44 AM