Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
vanfullofretards

Ron Paul Revolution!!!!

Recommended Posts

Is Ron Paul A White Supremacist? Absolutely!

Oh, he’s not REALLY a white supremacist; He just happens to support them, take their money and advance their goals. But he’s not ONE of them!!! He’s all about freedom!!!

 

The freedom to legally discriminate against minorities, at any rate.

 

Oh, right! I forgot, he’s also the chosen candidate of white supremacists.

 

From The Michigan Messenger:

 

Stormfront.org, a white supremacyweb site, as well as others, such as WhiteWorldNews.com, have actively supported Paul’s bid for the presidency, including directing donors to his campaign. Stormfront has also endorsed Paul for president.

 

“Once in a great while a presidential candidate is presented to us. A candidate who not only speaks to us, but for us…I am supporting Ron Paul in his run for the presidency,” the Stormfront endorsement says. The endorsement praises Paul’s plans to reduce taxes, close the borders and eliminate trade deals, such as NAFTA.

 

Riiiiight. Because no other Republicans support ANY of those particular goals. Now, granted, this article is from the 2008 election cycle. One might be tempted to dismiss it. after all, the KKK simply adores Obama as a recruitment tool. But this is not a recent phenomena.

 

Ron Paul is a hard core racist. This is a known but little reported fact. He has published a newsletter for over thirty years that puts forth a steady stream of stunning racism:

 

Paul’s alliance with neo-Confederates helps explain the views his newsletters have long espoused on race. Take, for instance, a special issue of the Ron Paul Political Report,published in June 1992, dedicated to explaining the Los Angeles riots of that year. “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began,” read one typical passage. According to the newsletter, the looting was a natural byproduct of government indulging the black community with “‘civil rights,’ quotas, mandated hiring preferences, set-asides for government contracts, gerrymandered voting districts, black bureaucracies, black mayors, black curricula in schools, black tv shows, black tv anchors, hate crime laws, and public humiliation for anyone who dares question the black agenda.” It also denounced “the media” for believing that “America’s number one need is an unlimited white checking account for underclass blacks.”…

 

“Oh, but that was just ONE article at a very emotional time for the country!” you say?

 

This “Special Issue on Racial Terrorism” was hardly the first time one of Paul’s publications had raised these topics. As early as December 1989, a section of hisInvestment Letter, titled “What To Expect for the 1990s,” predicted that “Racial Violence Will Fill Our Cities” because “mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white ‘haves.’” Two months later, a newsletter warned of “The Coming Race War,” and, in November 1990, an item advised readers, “If you live in a major city, and can leave, do so. If not, but you can have a rural retreat, for investment and refuge, buy it.” In June 1991, an entry on racial disturbances in Washington, DC’s Adams Morgan neighborhood was titled, “Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo.” “This is only the first skirmish in the race war of the 1990s,” the newsletter predicted. In an October 1992 item about urban crime, the newsletter’s author–presumably Paul–wrote, “I’ve urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming.” That same year, a newsletter described the aftermath of a basketball game in which “blacks poured into the streets of Chicago in celebration. How to celebrate? How else? They broke the windows of stores to loot.” The newsletter inveighed against liberals who “want to keep white America from taking action against black crime and welfare,” adding, “Jury verdicts, basketball games, and even music are enough to set off black rage, it seems.”

 

 

 

 

 

Well, how about that? It seems like Mr. Paul’s publication has a long history of really nasty racism.

 

“But he says he never wrote those articles and did not realize what was going into the newsletter…” you say?

 

You’re right! He does say that! Dozens of racist articles over several years and somehow nobody ever mentioned it to him? That’s his excuse? Spare me! That’s about as plausible as Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin converting to Islam and donning burkas.

 

 

Praise Allah! You bet'cha!

But nowhere is Ron Paul’s barely concealed racism more evident than in his full throated rejection of the Civil Rights Act. Because it infringed on people’s “freedom.”

 

From the May 13 episode of Hardball with Chris Matthew:

 

 

 

MATTHEWS: But you would have voted for the — you know you — oh, come on. Honestly, Congressman, you were not for the ’64 civil rights bill.

 

PAUL: Because — because of the property rights element, not because it got rid of the Jim Crow law.

 

MATTHEWS: Right. The guy who owns a bar says, no blacks allowed, you say that’s fine. … This was a local shop saying no blacks allowed. You say that should be legal?

 

PAUL: That’s — that’s ancient history. That’s ancient history. That’s over and done with. [...]

 

Discrimination based on race is ancient history? I wish I could live in that world! That would be awesome! There would be no Tea Party, no GOP, no Fox News. What a nice place that would be…

 

But for those of us still connected to reality, Mr. Paul’s assertions are that of a lunatic. Right Wing fanatics protest the building of a mosque in their town and that is a Constitutionally protected right. What kind of person can see that and thinks “Eh, nobody would ban Negroes from their establishment if they were allowed to. People just aren’t like that anymore.”?

 

The freedom to discriminate is not the kind of freedom this country stands for anymore. In that, at least, Mr. Paul is correct. It’s ancient history and we will not allow Right Wing bigots to turn back the clock to “The Good Ol’ Days.”

 

By Justin "Filthy Liberal Scum" Rosario

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.

Last fall, Rand Paul briefly caused a stir when he suggested that his libertarian principles would require him to have opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Paul danced around the subject, refusing the let himself be pinned down.

 

Tonight his father and political idol, Ron Paul, appeared on "Hardball" and said, very forthrightly, what his son merely implied:

 

Rand's statements on the law (which he later retracted) came during his first week as the Republican nominee for Senate in Kentucky in 2010. Ron's criticisms of the law came on the day he declared his third run for the presidency.

"Yeah," he told Matthews when asked if he would have voted against the act in Congress. "But I wouldn't vote against getting rid of the Jim Crow laws."

Ron, like his son, said that his statement about the Civil Rights Act has nothing to do with the law's intentions -- i.e. ending institutionalized discrimination in a wide swath of American life, including in the public accommodations where African Americans were denied service at the height of the Jim Crow era. Paul said he would vote against the law because it imposed unfair rules on what private business owners can and can't do on their own property. Essentially, they should be free to discriminate if they wish, Paul says, however distasteful that may be.

Of course, Ron Paul isn't just a fanatic Ayn Rand devotee like the son he claims he didn't name after her. He's also, as James Kirchick demonstrated last year, a flagrant racist:

 

Paul’s alliance with neo-Confederates helps explain the views his newsletters have long espoused on race. Take, for instance, a special issue of the Ron Paul Political Report,published in June 1992, dedicated to explaining the Los Angeles riots of that year. “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began,” read one typical passage. According to the newsletter, the looting was a natural byproduct of government indulging the black community with “‘civil rights,’ quotas, mandated hiring preferences, set-asides for government contracts, gerrymandered voting districts, black bureaucracies, black mayors, black curricula in schools, black tv shows, black tv anchors, hate crime laws, and public humiliation for anyone who dares question the black agenda.” It also denounced “the media” for believing that “America’s number one need is an unlimited white checking account for underclass blacks.”...

This “Special Issue on Racial Terrorism” was hardly the first time one of Paul’s publications had raised these topics. As early as December 1989, a section of hisInvestment Letter, titled “What To Expect for the 1990s,” predicted that “Racial Violence Will Fill Our Cities” because “mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white ‘haves.’” Two months later, a newsletter warned of “The Coming Race War,” and, in November 1990, an item advised readers, “If you live in a major city, and can leave, do so. If not, but you can have a rural retreat, for investment and refuge, buy it.” In June 1991, an entry on racial disturbances in Washington, DC’s Adams Morgan neighborhood was titled, “Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo.” “This is only the first skirmish in the race war of the 1990s,” the newsletter predicted. In an October 1992 item about urban crime, the newsletter’s author--presumably Paul--wrote, “I’ve urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming.” That same year, a newsletter described the aftermath of a basketball game in which “blacks poured into the streets of Chicago in celebration. How to celebrate? How else? They broke the windows of stores to loot.” The newsletter inveighed against liberals who “want to keep white America from taking action against black crime and welfare,” adding, “Jury verdicts, basketball games, and even music are enough to set off black rage, it seems.”

 

Jonathan Chait

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See zig, it is easy to copy and paste things.:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

 

BTW

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Go fuck yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CILONE/SK, it is easy to google 'problems with Ron Paul', or something similar, and cut and paste the results, but you appear not to be able to critically evaluate the substance of the text you are posting. While some of these concerns are legitimate, and an outcome of using various economic methodology, what appears to be unapparent to you is that there is no consistency between critiques. For instance, some articles are arguing from a Keynesian perspective, others are arguing from a neo-classical etc. In fact some of the articles appear to be internally inconsistent themselves! If it were the case that you had understood these articles developed some considered opinions on the issues raised, you would not dredge up any old article that has an anti-Ron Paul bent, instead there would be a clear line of critique established through the selection of text you presented. The fact that this clear line of critique is not present even when simply cutting and pasting articles that you agree with, which is much easier than writing a critique yourself, indicates to me that you do not have a grasp on these issues and instead have either an irrational, or simply an uninformed, dislike of Ron Paul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You obviously do not realize that I just put up a bunch of crap to show zig how easy it is to find things online that will support your point of view. He has a habit of posting campaign rhetoric that really gas not facts in it. I figured I would do the same.

 

I really would be willing to honestly discuss anything about Ron Paul, but no one here so far is willing to take a objective look at him and his flaws. Until that happens, I am going to keep calling bullshit to all the stuff that is posted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Btw, I an very read up on him and his policies. I research EVERYTHING, but I have also been on 12oz for years and will tell someone fuck you when they are pushing an agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You obviously do not realize that I just put up a bunch of crap to show zig how easy it is to find things online that will support your point of view. He has a habit of posting campaign rhetoric that really gas not facts in it. I figured I would do the same.

 

I really would be willing to honestly discuss anything about Ron Paul, but no one here so far is willing to take a objective look at him and his flaws. Until that happens, I am going to keep calling bullshit to all the stuff that is posted.

 

This is not a satisfactory response. It is the equivalent of saying 'he did it first so I can too'. It is just further evidence of your childish, surface level, partisan buffoonery. If you want to have a serious discussion then you need to raise the bar. Stop insulting people and demonstrate that you will engage with the response of the other contributors.

 

How long you have been on this website is irrelevant. Based on reading your previous posts my suspicion is that you are a troll and have no interest in a real discussion, but that could be giving you too much credit. Equally you could just be a complete moron. You reply within minutes every-time someone posts in here but never manage to offer anything more than taunts or insults or both. If you are well read, demonstrate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is not a satisfactory response. It is the equivalent of saying 'he did it first so I can too'. It is just further evidence of your childish, surface level, partisan buffoonery. If you want to have a serious discussion then you need to raise the bar. Stop insulting people and demonstrate that you will engage with the response of the other contributors.

 

How long you have been on this website is irrelevant. Based on reading your previous posts my suspicion is that you are a troll and have no interest in a real discussion, but that could be giving you too much credit. Equally you could just be a complete moron. You reply within minutes every-time someone posts in here but never manage to offer anything more than taunts or insults or both. If you are well read, demonstrate it.

 

I can honestly give a fuck what you think. You call me childish, but you have not said a single thing in your few posts. So, how about you put up or shut up. You have not even told us anything about your point of views.

 

 

At least I stay on subject and not try to change it. I will assume that you are a knobslobber, since you only post here and do not actually tell us anything at all. So if you are going to attack me, at least make it interesting, instead of trying to take the high road, when you have not posted one single post that shows you are more intelligent then me or anyone else, because right now, you sound like a RP troll yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just to clarify for anyone reading this topic;

This was not in any way copy and pasted from any source or taken from anywhere else. It is 110% my writing done in around 20-25 minutes of my spare time after I got home from work.

 

I think you are full of shit, but the TRUTH is that you can not even tell us all what ronnie paulies FP will do to stop terrorism. You have refused to answer that question, even though it is a very relevant question for a presidential candidate. In fact Ron Paul has refused to answer that question and keeps saying that he wants to bring our troops back to our borders, but that does not address what will stop the terrorist of the world to just build power in a third world country. Sooner or later they will get strong enough to attack us on our borders and we will be too weak to do anything about it.

 

Nice try, trying to change the subject to liberty, which not one person is actually arguing about, but you knobslobbers always try to redirect arguments to that because it is easy for you to discuss. When it comes to real discussions about real issues that affect real Americans, none of you offer anything of substance that would actually support America and the ideals that it stands for.

 

 

 

So, Fuck you:lol: :lol: :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the unfortunate results of the Ames straw poll were announced, a constant mewling and bleating has gone up from several sectors of the political system. Faced with a media that represents (accurately) the top tier of the Republican Presidential Nominating Contest as Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry and Mitt Romney, with a few idle and unproductive fantasies about Rick Santorum or Jon Huntsman recovering, the partisans of one particularly impotent politician shriek their discontent:

 

“What about Ron Paul?! He took second! Doesn’t he warrant a mention?”

 

This meme has been echoed even by the likes of Jon Stewart, whose fanciful quest to ferret out every trace of hypocrisy on the side of his opponents has instead led him down the rabbit hole of self-righteousness and false punditry, always thinly veiled by a layer of badly applied clown makeup. Nevertheless, the question must be asked: What about Ron Paul?

 

Let me take a crack at answering that. The reason no one wants to discuss Ron Paul as a top tier contender is because most people would rather pretend he were not a contender at all. Why? Because Ron Paul is a joke at the expense of the Right, and his second place showing in the straw poll was the bad punch line. The man tracks with (and may agree with) racist, conspiracy-mongering mongoloids so vile that they would instantly discredit libertarianism if any liberal media outlet more relevant than The New Republic ever bothered to cover them. Those who disagree are invited to explain the chumminess between Ron Paul and the Mises Institute, whose patron Saint Murray Rothbard once made a habit of paling around both with Maoists and with the followers of David Duke, for the simple reason that the responsible Right failed to display a sufficient hatred of America relative to those two groups.

 

What Paul’s partisans fail to apprehend is that the reason that coverage is not forthcoming for their hero is because Paul has made himself the avatar of a time-tested brand of Republicanism: That is, self-hating Republicanism. The reason disingenuous sniggerers like Stewart sympathize with Paul and Rachel Maddow will fawningly ask him to explain his crackpot theories is that Ron Paul attacks his own party with twice the zeal he ever uses against liberals. He spouts the same nonsense talking points as members of the Pacifist Left (“Iran is only defending themselves!”) and the Socialist Left (“Corporations aren’t people! Only people are people!”) with the ingenious capacity for somehow duping legions of devoted followers into believing these time-tested left wing gobs of spit are somehow true conservatism. It’s time someone explained precisely why this designation is as fantastical as Paul’s chances at election are.

 

Paul calls himself a Constitutional conservative. Not since Lyndon Larouche’s love affair with the word “fascist” has a political descriptor been so repeatedly abused. Paul is neither Constitutionalist, nor conservative, nor capitalist. His Constitutionalism is revisionist historical fanfiction based on a vision of the Founders so unrealistic it makes John Galt look three-dimensional. His economics are an unfalsifiable, unscientific tangle that would make creationists blush. His conservatism is a mask for a brand of antiwar utopianism that condemns George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan and Abraham Lincoln while excusing Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler and Jefferson Davis. If William F. Buckley stood athwart the train of history yelling STOP, then Paul has instead ridden it into the tunnels of irrelevance, where the billowing clouds of hot air that spew from his mouth will asphyxiate him and his followers like so many disposable extras in an Ayn Rand novel. Like Rand, it’s best that we leave him to die.

 

Start with Paul’s utterly inaccurate vision of the Founders. For evidence, one need only look at his speech from this year’s CPAC. Without a trace of irony, Paul managed to go from extolling his followers for leading a “revolution” to condemning neoconservatives as “neo-Jacobins.” Paul would know something about Jacobinism, for he also made the laughable contention that “force has never worked,” and implied that the Founders would not have supported the War on Terror. Ironically, this theory – if not its particulars – puts him in the company of actual historical Jacobins.

 

If you were to ask a Ron Paul supporter to name a President who had fought an undeclared war on the slogan that America would pay millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute, who had rigidly controlled travel and immigration, and who had imprisoned dissidents on the theory that they could be potential enemy combatants, most would probably say it was George W. Bush. This answer is as predictable as it is wrong. In fact, the descriptors above apply to John Adams, one of the actual Founders who Ron Paul so adores, and the cousin of Samuel Adams – one of Ron Paul’s favorite pages on Wikiquote.

 

Adams’ opponents in his undeclared war happened to be the post-Jacobin Directory of France, who had taken to authorizing piracy against the United States over a trade dispute. Adams tried negotiation, but when one of the French diplomats asked Adams’ agents for a bribe, he called the entire thing off and went to war without the approval of Congress. He got away with it partially because the public relations fallout from these negotiations was so severe that every pro-French American politician (including Thomas Jefferson) was branded a closeted Jacobin. Certainly, the actual Jacobins sounded similar notes.

 

So despite his constant claims to be speaking for the Founders, one imagines that Paul would side with the Jacobins over one of the actual Founders in viewing this act of war as a mistake. No doubt he would have paid the bribe and “peacefully” settled the whole thing, turning the United States into a victim of extortion in the process. After all, the one thing a Paulite will die for is the idea that everything should be for sale, even one’s dignity. Which may explain why their hero has none left.

And what of the things that are and aren’t for sale? Certainly no Congressman has been so seemingly economics-minded as Paul. Do his economics hold water?

 

Not at all. Consider the following: Along with maintaining one of the most openly cranky blogs on the internet, Paul’s old Chief of Staff, Lew Rockwell, fancies himself an economist of the Rothbardian school. Never mind that Rockwell is actually a former English major, for that is the least of his worries. Consider instead that Rockwell’s (and Paul’s) professed idol, Rothbard, was such a radical even for the Austrian school that he outright denied the usefulness of empirical evidence at all. No mathematical models for Rothbard, either – for him, it was enough to purely take it on faith that one could find answers to all the great questions in economics through poorly derived, logically fallacious extrapolations from the General Equilibrium Theory of Supply and Demand.

 

And what did Rothbard derive from that theory? Nothing less than a moral and political mandate for absolute anarchy. Capitalist anarchy, mind you, in that Rothbard and Rockwell would rather have private defense contractors—for those of you not familiar with the jargon, that means institutions like the Italian Mafia and the Russian Mob—handle the defense of citizens. In formulating this morally, economically and politically insane fever dream, Rothbard and his heirs (Rockwell and Paul included) claimed to be carrying on the Austrian tradition started by the likes of Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek. But Mises’ own 1000 page tract of semi-autistic dogmatism, Human Action, failed to come out in favor of anarchy, and Hayek favored a minimal welfare state, so long as it conformed to the rule of law. Hardly the sort of ringing endorsement one needs for a theory that views competition among the Russian and Italian mobs as superior to the enlightened rule of law propagated by the contemporary American state.

 

Paul, of course, studiously claims not to be an anarchist. But he is on record praising Rothbard, and his former Chief of Staff runs a think tank devoted to propagating Rothbard’s insane legacy. And while we’re on the subject of that think tank – the aforementioned and insultingly named Mises Institute – what else do you think they produce under the auspices of Paul’s former right hand man? Nothing less than full throated defenses of absolute monarchy, as well as bribery, blackmail, whoredom and graft. This last book comes with an endorsement from (who else) Rothbard himself, and may explain at least somewhat the infatuation of teenage males with the Rothbard sympathizer Ron Paul. Legalized prostitution, whatever its economic merits, cannot fail to appeal to the pimply perpetual virgins who staff Paul’s volunteer armies. And as for defenses of absolute monarchy, most of those virgins fancy themselves the returning King Aragorns made flesh anyway.

Leave aside the moral ridiculousness (to say nothing of the anti-American character) of these arguments, though, and look at the economics underlying them. There is not a scrap of mathematical analysis, and none of the hypotheses are falsifiable. If Paul’s supporters fancy this economic science, one presumes they also think the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is practicing theology. This brand of Austrianism is to Economics what Young Earth Creationism is to Science generally. Keynesians, at least, have the good taste to be economic Intelligent Design theorists and trust their economic fate to the blind watchmaker that is the Federal Government. And by the way, they’re half right about that description – the Federal Government is almost always blind.

 

Except, that is, when it comes to foreign policy. And here, at last, is the true rub where Ron Paul is concerned. Many conservatives have attacked Paul for being overly friendly to drugs, but this is hardly a new development on the Right. National Review has (correctly, in my opinion) remained in support of ending the drug war since Bill Buckley ran for mayor of New York. And as any Paulite who’s been paying attention will tell you, Ron Paul is just as much a social conservative and deficit hawk as any other Republican (in fact, he is the latter arguably more than any Republican, except when it comes to earmarks). No, the only fight that really exists between the mainstream Right and Ron Paul at the level of serious policy is over foreign policy.

 

I have already dispatched with the idiotic talking point that our current strategy of pre-emptive or undeclared war is somehow unprecedented or contrary to the intent of the Founders (John Adams begs to differ). Unfortunately, this is the most serious thing Paul will say when you sit him down and make him talk about foreign policy. Those who watched last week’s debate will remember the spectacle of Paul claiming (with a straight face) that Iran was not a threat and only wanted nuclear power because it was frightened of its big, scary neighbors who had nuclear power. And let’s not forget his mind-numbing chant about “blowback,” a talking point which was dismissed by Christopher Hitchens against a more honest America hater than Ron Paul as the contention that the terrorists “wouldn’t be this way if we weren’t so mean to them.”

 

One could go on for ages about the magical thinking and fallacies inherent in Ron Paul’s vision of foreign policy, but these would all be symptoms of a larger disease: Ron Paul is simply incapable of accepting that there are people in the world who do not conform to the rigid and simplistic mental model known as Homo Economicus. That model is predicated on the possession of perfect information (something no one has in the realm of foreign policy thanks to the everpresent fog of war), and more importantly, perfect rationality. This latter quality is not only not universal – it is unheard of, in world leaders as in anyone else, and especially in the case of Iran’s current leaders.

 

Moreover, the true lunacy of the Paulite vision on foreign policy cannot be comprehended simply by discussing isolated policy positions. There is probably a universe where one could argue against direct military action, or even indirect economic action against Iran using prudential concerns native to realpolitik. However unpersuasive that argument might be, it would at least be made on the grounds of what is in the United States’ interests, or in the interests of global stability. Also, in framing the issue prudentially, such a hypothetical dovish argument would at least acknowledge the possibility that circumstances might change and the hypothesis could be proven wrong.

 

Not so with Paul’s vision, which takes non-interventionism (read: crypto-pacifism) as an axiom. Under Paul’s vision, America would be constantly constrained to wait until shots had actually been fired against our troops, or bombs dropped on our cities, or planes flown into our buildings, before we ever did anything against anyone. Leave pre-emptive war out of it – this forecloses even basic intelligence operations. Is it not enough that the Federal Government is blind to reality domestically? Must Ron Paul also root out its rather unique capacity to assess the world stage and take action to secure its citizens?

 

And if so, why? For LIBERTY, the constant hue and cry goes. But as the old adage says, freedom is not free – a fact that Paulites should be quite aware of, given their hatred of unpriced goods. It is the case, as Colonel Nathan R. Jessep famously opined in A Few Good Men, that we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be defended by men with guns. It is to the advantage of this great country that our political process is not also settled by men with guns, but instead through a Constitutional process fenced in by the rule of law. Still, it is to the good of all that the self-appointed guardians of our political process – the media – have conspired to keep Ron Paul firmly outside the gates to relevance.

 

I would say that I come to bury Rep. Paul, not to praise him, but it is unnecessary. Despite the constant Kruschev-esque protests of Paul’s crazed followers that whether conservatives like it or not, history is on the side of the Paulites and they will bury us, the facts tell a different and far more uncharitable story. In the battle for conservatism, history is not only against the Paulites, but when it comes to the flaws of their champion, they have buried themselves – headfirst – in the sand.

 

And in conclusion, liberty liberty constitution straw poll money bomb money bomb liberty tee-hee-hee-hee, the call is coming from inside the house. I win the debate.

 

 

Phillip Mencken is the pseudonym of a conservative author.

 

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/17/ron-pauls-liberty-will-give-us-death/#ixzz1VipYyfZo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just realized Profsuspecto will not be able to respond. Disregard last post.

 

I will stop killing this thread because El Mamerro wants me to. Feel free to profess your love to Ronnie Paulie without me driving you off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

he started off good? pffft...

 

or he'll respond articulately with plenty of points on why that article is a piece of shit and you'll just claim he said nothing at all. or you'll claim he copy + pasted his own writing, when you're the one who browses the internet for arguments to copy + paste in here fuckin hypocrite.

 

biggest joke in 12oz crossfire. go back to channel zero, you have nothing but inconsistent shitty internet anti-ron paul propaganda articles that you probably don't even comprehend. funny how you are an Obama supporter posting far-right publications that throw RP under the bus, you probably don't even read the entirety of the garbage you use as support for your "arguments". to give you any further credence on here is an embarrassment, to say you "started off good" is a shame rofl.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zig, you are just trying to draw me out.

 

I am still waiting on you to answer one simple question:

 

What is RP FP going to do to prevent terrorist in the future from staying in a third world country and growing powerful enough to attack us? They can do this if they do not mess with our borders while they are building their strength.

 

This is a valid question for a presidential nominee and your failure to answer it is a sign that your candidate does not have any substance beyond the liberty rhetoric all of you continue to argue for even though not one single person is arguing his position on American liberties. You all just revert back to that, because that is all you can talk about without looking crazy like your candidate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, the only fight that really exists between the mainstream Right and Ron Paul at the level of serious policy is over foreign policy.

 

I have already dispatched with the idiotic talking point that our current strategy of pre-emptive or undeclared war is somehow unprecedented or contrary to the intent of the Founders (John Adams begs to differ). Unfortunately, this is the most serious thing Paul will say when you sit him down and make him talk about foreign policy. Those who watched last week’s debate will remember the spectacle of Paul claiming (with a straight face) that Iran was not a threat and only wanted nuclear power because it was frightened of its big, scary neighbors who had nuclear power. And let’s not forget his mind-numbing chant about “blowback,” a talking point which was dismissed by Christopher Hitchens against a more honest America hater than Ron Paul as the contention that the terrorists “wouldn’t be this way if we weren’t so mean to them.”

 

One could go on for ages about the magical thinking and fallacies inherent in Ron Paul’s vision of foreign policy, but these would all be symptoms of a larger disease: Ron Paul is simply incapable of accepting that there are people in the world who do not conform to the rigid and simplistic mental model known as Homo Economicus. That model is predicated on the possession of perfect information (something no one has in the realm of foreign policy thanks to the everpresent fog of war), and more importantly, perfect rationality. This latter quality is not only not universal – it is unheard of, in world leaders as in anyone else, and especially in the case of Iran’s current leaders.

 

Moreover, the true lunacy of the Paulite vision on foreign policy cannot be comprehended simply by discussing isolated policy positions. There is probably a universe where one could argue against direct military action, or even indirect economic action against Iran using prudential concerns native to realpolitik. However unpersuasive that argument might be, it would at least be made on the grounds of what is in the United States’ interests, or in the interests of global stability. Also, in framing the issue prudentially, such a hypothetical dovish argument would at least acknowledge the possibility that circumstances might change and the hypothesis could be proven wrong.

 

Not so with Paul’s vision, which takes non-interventionism (read: crypto-pacifism) as an axiom. Under Paul’s vision, America would be constantly constrained to wait until shots had actually been fired against our troops, or bombs dropped on our cities, or planes flown into our buildings, before we ever did anything against anyone. Leave pre-emptive war out of it – this forecloses even basic intelligence operations. Is it not enough that the Federal Government is blind to reality domestically? Must Ron Paul also root out its rather unique capacity to assess the world stage and take action to secure its citizens?

 

And if so, why? For LIBERTY, the constant hue and cry goes. But as the old adage says, freedom is not free – a fact that Paulites should be quite aware of, given their hatred of unpriced goods. It is the case, as Colonel Nathan R. Jessep famously opined in A Few Good Men, that we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be defended by men with guns. It is to the advantage of this great country that our political process is not also settled by men with guns, but instead through a Constitutional process fenced in by the rule of law. Still, it is to the good of all that the self-appointed guardians of our political process – the media – have conspired to keep Ron Paul firmly outside the gates to relevance.

 

 

 

Phillip Mencken is the pseudonym of a conservative author.

 

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/17/ron-pauls-liberty-will-give-us-death/#ixzz1VipYyfZo

 

Please feel free to address this guy who is right on with his article. BTW, he is a conservative and not voting for Obama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who starts an article out with "RP is a joke" has no grasp on his career, or his credibility. Which also means that everything said after this is irrelevant. Completely biased points of view.

 

I know you'll laugh at that, but seeing as it is one of your main defense's when responding to someone else, I could give a fuck.

 

His career should speak for itself, and even if you don't agree with him, and think the Libertarian ideology is idiotic you still can't take away from the man's character and what he has been able to accomplish since going into public service. Of course the constitutional/conservative movement that he spawned on his own, and the overall effect it could have on this country in the future, if he wins or falls flat on his face in this presidential race.

 

This is also the last time I address anything you say in Crossfire. Over and out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please show me where you responded to my question about terrorism and what his policies will do to stop them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look through this thread CILONE we've said and made plenty of points about blow-back theory, I responded to your points and you just claim they aren't direct responses. When have you responded to anything we've asked you? You do the same exact thing you accuse people of here in this thread, stop being a hypocrite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...