Skip

Google Military Industrial Complex
October 1, 2010 4:19 PM   Subscribe


 
Starts well, then goes off the rails.
posted by blue_beetle at 4:22 PM on October 1, 2010


GOOGLE CAPTAIN AMERICA
posted by griphus at 4:23 PM on October 1, 2010 [3 favorites]


What if the American people woke up and demanded excessively ornate fonts? What then America?
posted by GuyZero at 4:26 PM on October 1, 2010 [9 favorites]


On the one hand, he's right. On the other hand, Charles Lindbergh, who would have agreed with him, was wrong.
posted by found missing at 4:27 PM on October 1, 2010


GOOGLE RON PAUL DON BLACK
posted by StrikeTheViol at 4:28 PM on October 1, 2010 [1 favorite]


I bet he actually delivered this to a deserted chamber.

And I found the "what if" formulation almost as distracting as the background music and fonts on steroids visuals. Can't Paul speak in declarative sentences?
posted by bearwife at 4:28 PM on October 1, 2010


Starts well, then goes off the rails.

When? At around 2:30 he brings Obama into it. I was with him to that point, and then pretty much all of what he said afterward. So maybe I'm just a sucker for Obama.

It did mostly make sense. All empires go down under the weight of their own conspicuous consumption and misguided transgressions in the name of homeland security.
posted by philip-random at 4:33 PM on October 1, 2010


I bet he actually delivered this to a deserted chamber.

Given that basically every floor speech of every member of Congress every single day of every session is delivered to a deserted chamber, no matter what it's about or who delivers it, I'd say that's a safe bet.
posted by The World Famous at 4:34 PM on October 1, 2010 [3 favorites]


But trust me on the sunscreen.
posted by 23skidoo at 4:40 PM on October 1, 2010 [5 favorites]


I didn't watch the whole thing, but can anyone who did tell me if Rep. Paul mentioned anything about his previously published belief that 95% of black males are at least semi-criminal?
posted by deadmessenger at 4:41 PM on October 1, 2010 [8 favorites]


I wonder what Ron's little boy thinks about that?
posted by oneswellfoop at 4:42 PM on October 1, 2010


deadmessenger, does Obama mention his teenage cocaine habit in every speech? Does Russ Feingold mention voting to impeach Bill Clinton?
posted by shii at 4:44 PM on October 1, 2010


What if... the only way to get people to listen to libertarian foreign policy ideas was with annoying motion graphics?
posted by acheekymonkey at 4:47 PM on October 1, 2010 [2 favorites]


My god, I just realized. Ron Paul does look like a shrunken version of Uatu. What if... indeed.
posted by Joey Michaels at 4:48 PM on October 1, 2010


Oh, and...

GOOGLE UATU
posted by Joey Michaels at 4:49 PM on October 1, 2010 [3 favorites]


Saying, "What if my questions are unfounded? Nothing. But what happens if my concerns are justified? Nothing good," is rhetorically weak. What if we're secretly being occupied by invisible pink unicorn commandos, etc.

That said, it's good to know that people I disagree with very much about many things agree with me on a few things.
posted by GameDesignerBen at 4:49 PM on October 1, 2010 [1 favorite]


What if... the only way to get people to listen to libertarian foreign policy ideas was with annoying motion graphics?

Does anyone want to head into some hardcore Randroid forums and start seeding the idea of adapting Galt's "monologue" in this format? It'll be like when the guy from 419 Eater convinced those Nigerian scammers to re-enact the Dead Parrot sketch/carve a C64 out of wood.
posted by griphus at 4:50 PM on October 1, 2010 [7 favorites]


So maybe I'm just a sucker for Obama.

I suspect you've fallen into the neoliberal trap that criticism of Obama is agreement with Glenn Beck.
posted by clarknova at 5:00 PM on October 1, 2010 [4 favorites]


I'm looking forward to PowerPoint 2012 featuring such bouncy, falling text with swoopy transitions between slides, making such presentations even easier. That, or maybe the rebirth of Toaster.
posted by filthy light thief at 5:05 PM on October 1, 2010



I wonder what Ron's little boy thinks about that?


Whatever Mitch McConnell tells him to.

Didn't like him before, either
posted by dilettante at 5:06 PM on October 1, 2010 [3 favorites]


GOOGLE METALLICA MP3
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 5:07 PM on October 1, 2010 [6 favorites]


It would be nice if the Tea Partiers took this to heart. Aren't they supposed to adore Ron Paul or something?
posted by Jimmy Havok at 5:07 PM on October 1, 2010 [1 favorite]


Starts well, then goes off the rails.

It's funny because it's true both of Ron Paul and every Metallica song.
posted by The World Famous at 5:09 PM on October 1, 2010 [6 favorites]


deadmessenger, does Obama mention his teenage cocaine habit in every speech? Does Russ Feingold mention voting to impeach Bill Clinton?

The difference in those cases is that Obama and Feingold presumably changed their minds about the rightness of those things, while Paul praised Rosa Parks, but takes white supremacist money to this day.
posted by StrikeTheViol at 5:12 PM on October 1, 2010 [1 favorite]


Man, the USAians are having a real crisis of conscience on metafilter today.
posted by doublesix at 5:13 PM on October 1, 2010 [1 favorite]


Profligate military spending is the logical result of the human project. As humans organize into larger and larger states, the physical functioning of these states requires more and more resources, which requires geographical and political expansion to fuel the never ending growing rate of consumption of the state superorganism. Non-interventionism is a nice idea but not realistic. Eventually, America will collapse just like a bacteria colony in an expended petri dish. Then come back for more.
posted by norabarnacl3 at 5:14 PM on October 1, 2010


George said it best.
posted by larry_darrell at 5:15 PM on October 1, 2010 [2 favorites]


buh. That was like reading some kid's t-shirt. Not the message, just the medium.
posted by kuujjuarapik at 5:18 PM on October 1, 2010


Why are you picking on the USAsians?
posted by found missing at 5:27 PM on October 1, 2010


What if Ron Paul would explore the philosophical ramifications of his perspective when he's speaking outside Congress, but use his speaking time to present substantive arguments for one or two key points that require the executive to provide a substantive response?

What if Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich tried serious cooperation on the things they agree about, rather than just being the corner duster attachments when their party needs to vacuum up the votes?
posted by anigbrowl at 5:28 PM on October 1, 2010 [15 favorites]


George said it best.
posted by larry_darrell


I used to agree with Carlin 99% but found that last bit just a little too cynical. Now I think he was was probably right. Not surprising that I was the one who was wrong.
posted by Marla Singer at 5:28 PM on October 1, 2010


the USAians

Pardon?

The preferred term is Stati Unitesi, thank you very much.
posted by The World Famous at 5:30 PM on October 1, 2010 [5 favorites]


I don't understand how this guy keeps getting elected to congress. His district was hit very hard by Hurricane Ike, and the Gulf Oil spill. Yet he keeps winning and winning in spite of doing absolutely nothing for his constituants in terms of using the vast resources of the federal government to help them. A police Cheif and Ret. Army guy is running against him this year but will probably lose.
posted by humanfont at 5:43 PM on October 1, 2010




You mean [strike]Stati[/strike]Stasi?

What, has my html been disabled ffs?
posted by Marla Singer at 5:52 PM on October 1, 2010


You mean [strike]Stati[/strike]Stasi?

Actually, my mistake - it should have either been all one word - Statiunitesi - or hyphenated.

So let's show a little respect and use Statiunitesi from here on out, ok?
posted by The World Famous at 5:55 PM on October 1, 2010


I don't understand how this guy keeps getting elected to congress.

Paul has access to a national network he can tap for money and press as needed, most recently through the Campaign for Liberty, that he can use to overwhelm any lesser known candidate in the state.
posted by StrikeTheViol at 5:55 PM on October 1, 2010


OK, about 20 seconds into thing, I started getting totally distracted by the intense in-your-face luridly colored typography and animation and losing track of whatever Ron Paul was talking about.
posted by Bwithh at 6:16 PM on October 1, 2010


Mostly good stuff, but his foreign policy stance is not why he belongs no where near a seat of power.

It would be nice if the Tea Partiers took this to heart. Aren't they supposed to adore Ron Paul or something?

The Tea Baggers have not been about libertarian values in a long time. They are religious fundamentalists and bigots.
posted by MrBobaFett at 6:19 PM on October 1, 2010 [2 favorites]


does Obama mention his teenage cocaine habit in every speech? Does Russ Feingold mention voting to impeach Bill Clinton?

It was a rhetorical question, really. I only brought it up because every word that Ron Paul utters in public, no matter how much I coincidentally may agree with what he says, is colored in my mind by the fact that he is a vile racist, and I question his every action in light of whether it benefits the cause of racism he so ardently supports.

That having been said, I'm sure there are more than a few people on the corporatist/ Republican side of the aisle who believe that the fact that President Obama did blow a few times 30-odd years ago means that he's acting now to benefit cokeheads.
posted by deadmessenger at 6:20 PM on October 1, 2010


I suspect you've fallen into the neoliberal trap that criticism of Obama is agreement with Glenn Beck.
posted by clarknova

Yeah, fuck that. We all just survived 8 years of Bush. The lesson should be, among many lessons, to not take what leaders tell us at face value.
posted by nola at 6:22 PM on October 1, 2010 [1 favorite]


I make it a point to never trust anyone with two first names.
posted by timsteil at 6:27 PM on October 1, 2010



GOOGLE LIBERTARIAN RACIST WITH A BIGOTED SON
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 5:44 PM


Yeah, don't be racist, do the exact opposite of everything Paul suggests. Like supporting bombing brown people.
posted by 445supermag at 6:44 PM on October 1, 2010 [1 favorite]


On the one hand, he's right. On the other hand, Charles Lindbergh, who would have agreed with him, was wrong.

And I found the "what if" formulation almost as distracting as the background music and fonts on steroids visuals. Can't Paul speak in declarative sentences?

I didn't watch the whole thing, but can anyone who did tell me if Rep. Paul mentioned anything about his previously published belief that 95% of black males are at least semi-criminal?

I wonder what Ron's little boy thinks about that?

What if Ron Paul would explore the philosophical ramifications of his perspective when he's speaking outside Congress, but use his speaking time to present substantive arguments for one or two key points that require the executive to provide a substantive response?

What if Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich tried serious cooperation on the things they agree about, rather than just being the corner duster attachments when their party needs to vacuum up the votes?

None of these comments address anything that Ron Paul says in the SLYT. They avoid the issues and engage in ad hominem attacks against Ron Paul's character. Ron Paul's character has absolutely nothing to do with the truth or falsehood of the ideas expressed. People can attack him personally but all you are doing is avoiding the issues he raises. This course of action is not very helpful when trying to evaluate ideas. At least in my experience.

Some of the issues he raises deserve, in my opinion, serious attention. Such as: "What if the predictable consequence of meddling in the affairs of other? What if propping up dangerous regimes in the Middle East endangers both the United States and Israel? What if occupying countries like Iraq and Afghanistan and bombing Pakistan is directly related to the hatred directed toward us?"

These ideas are not crackpot ideas. These are ideas that actually originated in the CIA during the 1950's when analysts were worried about what they called "blowback". The first use of the term was found in a paper entitled: Clandestine Service History—Overthrow of Premier Mossadeq of Iran—November 1952–August 1953 This is actually very ironic considering that the problems we are having with Iran today are essentially blowback from this coup that was funded and run by the CIA. The history of the document in and of itself is also very interesting. These ideas presented by Mr. Paul because in the case of Pakistan the blowback could come in a very horrifying form.

"What if we see that wartime conditions always undermine personal liberty?"

"What if we realize that the quest for empire eventually destroys all great nations?" Here is a quote:

The veteran legions of Rome were an overmatch for the undisciplined valor of all other nations, and rendered her mistress of the world. Not the less true is it that the liberties of Rome proved the final victim to her military triumphs; and that the liberties of Europe, as far as they ever existed, have, with few exceptions, been the price of her military establishments. A standing force, therefore, is a dangerous, at the same time that it may be a necessary, provision. On the smallest scale it has its inconveniences. On an extensive scale its consequences may be fatal. On any scale it is an object of laudable circumspection and precaution. A wise nation will combine all these considerations; and, whilst it does not rashly preclude itself from any resource which may become essential to its safety, will exert all its prudence in diminishing both the necessity and the danger of resorting to one which may be inauspicious to its liberties.

You can dismiss these as crackpot ideas if you wish but I hope you to read the links I have provided before you make that determination.

"What if my questions are unfounded? Nothing. But what happens if my concerns are justified? Nothing good," is rhetorically weak. What if we're secretly being occupied by invisible pink unicorn commandos, etc.

Yeah that was really the only weak part. I think that he is pandering to the religious right on that one using the famous evangelical argument about why you should believe in Jesus. It's almost exactly the same formulation. My googlefu is failing me as i can't seem to find a webpage that has it. Maybe someone can help me out.

I guess what you guys are doing doesn't seem very helpful or even very intellectually honest, in my opinion. Continue if you must just realize the truth of the fact that your accusations and slander have nothing to do with the validity of his arguments. What you are doing is basically the equivalent of a four year old sticking his fingers in his or her's ears and yelling NA NA NA CAN'T HEAR YOU NA NA NA. If you continue I won't bring it up again but just keep that in mind.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 6:46 PM on October 1, 2010 [10 favorites]


OK, about 20 seconds into thing, I started getting totally distracted by the intense in-your-face luridly colored typography and animation and losing track of whatever Ron Paul was talking about.

Just minimize you browser or click over to another open tab and listen. That's what i did. The metallica was fucking annoying as hell though.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 6:48 PM on October 1, 2010


I make it a point to never trust anyone with two first names.

So true. Bob Dylan, Dylan Thomas, Woody Allen, Benjamin Franklin, Patrick Henry, George Lucas, Bill Murray, and Babe Ruth cannot be trusted. (Especially George Lucas - ed.)
posted by The World Famous at 6:49 PM on October 1, 2010 [3 favorites]


google ad hominem
posted by found missing at 6:51 PM on October 1, 2010


Great Carlin link by the way I hadn't seen that one in a while.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 6:54 PM on October 1, 2010


All empires go down under the weight of their own conspicuous consumption and misguided transgressions in the name of homeland security.

Leaving aside the matter of whether America has, or should have, imperial ambitions, I cannot think of any example that suggests empires are less enduring than non-empires. So this just seems another way of saying, "everything ends".
posted by eeeeeez at 7:01 PM on October 1, 2010


In fact, in the competitive game, empires might last longer than non-empires. So, if survival is the metric, maybe we should try empire building.
posted by found missing at 7:04 PM on October 1, 2010


People can attack him personally but all you are doing is avoiding the issues he raises.

When a crackpot rails to the world that the sky is blue, the sun rises in the East, and eating veggies is good for you, I'm not exactly going to be bowled over by his tremendous insight and forget his crackpotness. His sounds ideas here are neither novel nor revolutionary.

Some of the Ten Commandments being obvious isn't going to stop me from protesting putting it in a courthouse or a school.
posted by kmz at 7:05 PM on October 1, 2010 [11 favorites]


google ad hominem

I'm sorry I should have been more specific in your case. Your's was a variation on the "tu quoque" ad hominem fallacy. See here. Specifically this part:

The "tu quoque" or charging the locutor with "being just like the person" the locutor speaking about, is a narrower variety of this fallacy. In other words, rather than trying to disprove a remark about someone's character or circumstances, one accuses the locutor of having the same character or circumstances.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 7:06 PM on October 1, 2010


Ok, except that I was talking about the arguments, not the characters.
posted by found missing at 7:07 PM on October 1, 2010


Ah ok I thought you were trying to equate Paul with Lindberg. My bad.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 7:12 PM on October 1, 2010


Fuck it. I'll equate the two. Ad hominem my ass. Racist iz racist.
posted by PostIronyIsNotaMyth at 7:36 PM on October 1, 2010 [1 favorite]


Fuck that video. Easily the worst and most over-stylized font video I've seen. Awful and incredibly distracting from whatever message there might be. Completely undermines it.
posted by graventy at 7:51 PM on October 1, 2010


takes white supremacist money to this day.

He's a politician. They take money from almost anyone.

What with money being important and all.

What's Dr. Paul gonna do - get some legislation passed on their behalf? Or, for that matter, get any passed?

Look at the audit the fed bill.....gone no where. Tossing money to Paul isn't going to advance "your cause".

Racist iz racist.

In my metro area I can get a 'Black business' and a 'Hispanic business' phonebook.
Yet - go ahead.....I dare ya .... have a 'white business' phonebook - see how far that goes.

So no, racist ISN'T racist. Certain 'kinds' are tolerated.

(There is a 'finally a women in the business' billboard campaign and more than a few fish signs plus the normal networking done by scientologists and to a lesser extent Mormans as long as we're gonna get all group-y.)
posted by rough ashlar at 7:54 PM on October 1, 2010


Noam Chomsky says pretty much all the same things, but this being MetaFilter it's HURF DURF PAULTARDS I'M JUST A SUCKER FOR OBAMA I GUESS. As predictable as the sun going down.
posted by Scoo at 7:55 PM on October 1, 2010 [3 favorites]


the matter of whether America has, or should have, imperial ambitions

Didn't the #3 man in the communications office for the White House say that the US of A was an Empire and no one stepped forward to call his statement out of line?
posted by rough ashlar at 7:56 PM on October 1, 2010


His sounds ideas here are neither novel nor revolutionary.

Agreed, but can you see any other Congressman openly voicing them?

Personally, I find it really sad that the guy who wants to return to the gold standard is also the only congressman with sane views on foreign and drug policy.
posted by ripley_ at 7:57 PM on October 1, 2010 [3 favorites]


HURF DURF PAULTARDS

It bothers me that if I saw this on a t-shirt I would know what it means.
posted by found missing at 8:01 PM on October 1, 2010 [2 favorites]


Noam Chomsky says pretty much all the same things

Yes.

And plenty of others.

Paul, Feingold, Wellstone and a couple of others didn't vote for the Patriot Act as I remember.

But hey, don't rain on the 'Google Ron Paul' or the 'Hurf Durf'ers as then you won't get marked as a favorite and your post will get flagged as 'noise'.

We all just survived 8 years of Bush. The lesson should be, among many lessons, to not take what leaders tell us at face value.

Really? Bush was the clue? Unlike the Bush decision on Row VS Wade (both were methods to leave New Orleans)
U.S. Supreme Court FEDERAL CROP INS. CORPORATION V. MERRILL , 332 U.S. 380 (1947) let you know that if the lips of any government employee moves, assume they are lying.
posted by rough ashlar at 8:08 PM on October 1, 2010 [1 favorite]


In my metro area I can get a 'Black business' and a 'Hispanic business' phonebook.
Yet - go ahead.....I dare ya .... have a 'white business' phonebook - see how far that goes.


Oh good fucking lord. This bullshit again? There already is a 'white business' phonebook. It's called the phonebook.

If you can't tell the difference between "white pride" and "black pride", you can't be helped.
posted by kmz at 8:11 PM on October 1, 2010 [11 favorites]


U.S. Supreme Court FEDERAL CROP INS. CORPORATION V. MERRILL , 332 U.S. 380 (1947) let you know that if the lips of any government employee moves, assume they are lying.

I am simply unable to understand why we even have government. It must be some sort of plot that they are all in together. Except for Ron Paul.
posted by Jimmy Havok at 8:14 PM on October 1, 2010


There already is a 'white business' phonebook. It's called the phonebook.

Ok. I agree with what you're trying to get at with that comment. And your argument actually works with some things, like primetime television shows, American (sorry - Statiunitesian) movies, etc. But no, the regular phonebook is not a "white business" phonebook. The phonebook doesn't only list white businesses in an effort to sell more phonebooks. If the point of a phonebook directing the user to businesses owned and operated by persons of a specific race/ethnicity/national origin is to tell the user that the businesses listed therein are of that single category, then the phonebook containing listings for all of the businesses does not meet that qualification for businesses owned and operated by white people since (a) it doesn't make that distinction in its listings, and (b) it doesn't exclude non-white businesses from having listings.
posted by The World Famous at 8:17 PM on October 1, 2010


Fuck it. I'll equate the two. Ad hominem my ass. Racist iz racist.

Well that is definitely a tu quoque ad hominem fallacy.

In my metro area I can get a 'Black business' and a 'Hispanic business' phonebook.
Yet - go ahead.....I dare ya .... have a 'white business' phonebook - see how far that goes.


So what you're saying is that the Chinese run the yellow pages??? I always thought there was something kind of suspicious about the yellow pages.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 8:23 PM on October 1, 2010


Oh good fucking lord. This bullshit again? There already is a 'white business' phonebook. It's called the phonebook.

Funny thing. In the 'phonebook' I can find a mix of the "Hispanic" "Black" "Indian" "Asian" "Jewish" and even "White" owned businesses. (is that all the 'colors' from the Mars Warrior series?) In that medium - I don't remember seeing "white owned", but I do remember seeing 'Black owned' and 'Hispanic owned' (FAR less common than actual useful of 'hablas espanol')

If you can't tell the difference between "white pride" and "black pride", you can't be helped.

What is your issue that you left out the "Hispanic pride"?

Not to mention the concept of "racism iz racism" (what I was riffing off) - all you are doing is showing that your outburst is racism.

How, exactly is "Black Pride" not an expression of Racism?
posted by rough ashlar at 8:25 PM on October 1, 2010


racism is about power relations, not simply about in-groupism out-groupism
posted by found missing at 8:27 PM on October 1, 2010 [2 favorites]


So what you're saying is that the Chinese run the yellow pages

Alas, no 'Asian phonebook' in my area.

And besides, the yellow pages is long dead to me. Its NIS now. (Ok, Sun's dead....its now oracle)
posted by rough ashlar at 8:27 PM on October 1, 2010


Here you go: Yellow Pages
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 8:34 PM on October 1, 2010


racism is about power relations

Power relations?

What about the "monied interests" VS the 'rest of us'.

Referred to as Classicism. (While Race is called a 3rd rail of American politics - try bringing up class)

Where the top 1% own 'bout 1/2.

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

(ever stop to think that if you are fighting over the skin color or what invisible sky fairy you think is real you won't be bothered to ask "Why's that guy over there eating better than I am")
posted by rough ashlar at 8:35 PM on October 1, 2010


How did this thread get derailed into a racism debate? I thought we were supposed to be talking about the ideas and questions that the honorable Mr. Paul expressed in the horribly edited video.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 8:36 PM on October 1, 2010


None of these comments address anything that Ron Paul says in the SLYT. They avoid the issues and engage in ad hominem attacks against Ron Paul's character. Ron Paul's character has absolutely nothing to do with the truth or falsehood of the ideas expressed. People can attack him personally but all you are doing is avoiding the issues he raises. This course of action is not very helpful when trying to evaluate ideas. At least in my experience.

Fine, I'll engage more deeply. I disagree with Paul on a number of fundamental principles, particularly the nature of sovereignty. To Paul, all war is equally imperial, and every "sovereign entity" ought to be respected equally. The sovereign trumps all. The Civil War was an immoral abrogation of slaveholders rights, and the US declaration of war on Nazi Germany was a moral evil insofar as it was not defensive. Humanitarian intervention is a contradiction in terms. These positions are philosophically defensible to be sure, but hardly the only possible stance even the founders themselves took.
posted by StrikeTheViol at 8:36 PM on October 1, 2010


But no, the regular phonebook is not a "white business" phonebook. The phonebook doesn't only list white businesses in an effort to sell more phonebooks.

Sure, the problem isn't with the phonebook per se. But businesses are disproportionately white-owned. See this previous thread. It's not that the phonebook is itself racist, but rather than the world it catalogs.

What is your issue that you left out the "Hispanic pride"?

I was giving an example. There are many many classes of POC beyond black and Hispanic.

How, exactly is "Black Pride" not an expression of Racism?

How do you feel about gay pride parades?
posted by kmz at 8:39 PM on October 1, 2010


I think they are festive.
posted by found missing at 8:48 PM on October 1, 2010


How did this thread get derailed into a racism debate?

Because Ron Paul when he wasn't in power in Washington made a comment about the ground speed of male youths from certain racial groups. (I tried to make the Monty Python air speed joke and came up short...) And under the idea of 'discredit the speaker' arguments - that past gets brought up.

Doesn't matter if, on the topic in question, his comments are considered obvious, correct or not. Certain posters are going to say their normal "Google Ron Paul" comments.

And, frankly I was able to get to Classicism (because a whole lotta racism also fits classicism) so I'm good.

The Civil War was an immoral abrogation of slaveholders rights

One can choose to:
1) Not touch that.
2) Point out that The Bible says slave holding is OK and its OK to make slaves of members of Neighboring States
3) Point out that oil/Electrical/steam power acts as slaves now
4) Slavery was legal on a Federal level at that time and how States who allowed Slaves to become free were exercising nullification/10th ammendment rights as were other States later with Jim Crow.
5) other arguments I'm not remembering

I'm going with 1. I'll let others slug out non #1 options on what appears like a fine trolling job.
posted by rough ashlar at 8:53 PM on October 1, 2010 [1 favorite]


To Paul, all war is equally imperial

cite?

The Civil War was an immoral abrogation of slaveholders rights, and the US declaration of war on Nazi Germany was a moral evil insofar as it was not defensive.

cite? I think the argument can be made(successfully) that the declaration of war against the Nazis was a defensive war insofar as it was defending the ideals of democracy and freedom over fascism and authoritarianism. Not to mention they were allied with Japan who had attacked us. The Tripartite Pact was signed by Germany, Italy and Japan on September 27, 1940. We declared war against Geramany on December 11, 1941 four days after Japan attack us at Pearl Harbor so your argument that WWII was not a defensive war is not really accurate. That being said WWII led us inexorably to the predicament we find ourselves in today as the founders predicted in the links I provided in my initial post.

As far as the Barbary Coast War, if I remember correctly, they attacked us and we fought back. The war was ended by the signing of a peace treaty of Tripoli. So you can't equate any of these situations with our current wars; unless of course we decide to sign a peace treaty with the peasants we are currently at war with. At least not in my opinion.

Either way I don't see any evidence of Ron Paul being a pacifist, but rather a non-interventionist. There is a big difference.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 8:57 PM on October 1, 2010 [1 favorite]


isolationist
posted by found missing at 8:58 PM on October 1, 2010


Referred to as Classicism. (While Race is called a 3rd rail of American politics - try bringing up class)

Shetterly? Is that you? Racism and classism are both pernicious problems, and there is some intersectionality, but they are not the same. Each is damaging in its own way. Conflating the two only perpetuates both.

On preview, WTF: 3) Point out that oil/Electrical/steam power acts as slaves now

Are you really, seriously, somehow proposing to compare people to inanimate energy sources? Because I'm not sure how the hell I'm supposed to interpret that otherwise.
posted by kmz at 9:01 PM on October 1, 2010


I think y'all are putting an extra "c" in "classism."

Although, I really think it would be fantastic if the racism/classism derail could turn into a discussion about the art, literature, and culture of antiquity.

Also, I would posit that, when both of the two opposing sides in a debate about racism and classism fail to understand the difference between classism and classicism, they both automatically lose and have to stop talking abou it.
posted by The World Famous at 9:01 PM on October 1, 2010


The Civil War was an immoral abrogation of slaveholders rights

For the most part the civil war was an economic war. Slavery was not Lincoln's main concern, saving the Union was.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.

posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 9:02 PM on October 1, 2010


isolationist

"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none." ~ Thomas Jefferson

Ron Paul has quoted this more times than I can count, in fact I think he quoted it in every Republican presidential debate during the last election cycle. Not exactly isolationist. As I said, non-interventionist.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 9:06 PM on October 1, 2010


How do you feel about gay pride parades?

Non skin tone detectable? (and not an answer to the question: How, exactly is "Black Pride" not an expression of Racism?)

Personally - Don't care. Same way I was invited to a "black" bar tonight by Prince Hall members - if you must know my personal life.....thank you very much. I'm guessing my bisexual life partner would tell you to mind your own fucking business.

With the exception of race+religion that is Judaism (and I'm sure I missed some race+religion group - I don't intend to offend by skipping you) Racism is tied to input *MOSTLY* from the optic collection system. (Mostly because I've been in the room where foot+mouth = "You don't sound Black)

If the thread topic, in part, is gonna be racism (VS other 'isms) - "gay-ism" isn't "racism". I don't think Dr. Paul has said something openly anti-gay, but now having said that I'm sure something will be posted so thus the anti-gay part of the thread can start in earnest.
posted by rough ashlar at 9:07 PM on October 1, 2010


Are you really, seriously, somehow proposing to compare people to inanimate energy sources?

I'll let others talk about 'energy slaves'.

http://www.altenergymag.com/emagazine.php?issue_number=06.08.01&article=slaves
http://fatknowledge.blogspot.com/2006/08/100-energy-slaves-per-american.html
http://www.eoht.info/page/Energy+slave
http://www.practicalphysics.org/go/Guidance_68.html;jsessionid=alZLdQlAHb1


If I cared, I could dig about for actual comments tying the end of slavery to the rise of steam power....but if you really find the topic interesting you'll eventually find such. A few of the papers are compelling. I'd say 'google peak oil' but I've been flagging all the 'google X' crap as noise so I won't.


I think y'all are putting an extra "c" in "classism."

No. Just me and the spell-checker. Technology says its class ism. Mea culpa.
posted by rough ashlar at 9:15 PM on October 1, 2010


I'm not particularly fond of Ron Paul, but agree with him on a number of foreign policy points (though maybe not on their implementation), but damn if many people on this website can't refrain from acting like reactionary cranks at the mere mention of his name. That kind of Pavlovian response needs to be worked on and eliminated.
posted by Burhanistan at 9:21 PM on October 1, 2010 [10 favorites]


Holy living fuck I am in agreement with Burhanistan :)
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 9:23 PM on October 1, 2010


That kind of Pavlovian response needs to be worked on and eliminated.

Compare the response to the actions of Bush II VS the same actions of Obama here.

I'm guessing if the actions of Obama had "McCain" or *shudder* "Palin" instead of Obama - they'd be FPP's.
posted by rough ashlar at 9:26 PM on October 1, 2010 [2 favorites]


Racism and classism are both pernicious problems, and there is some intersectionality, but they are not the same.

I'll say they overlap quite a lot.

But the *HUMAN* trait of wanting to be in a herd/group and the *HUMAN* trait of wanting to attach a label to something so you can then quickly process - skin color is a damn quick way to identify, label and process someone as "your" group/not "your" group.

Language and manner of dress are other quick sort methods. To bring up an historic example - George Washington changed his dress and speech to move himself "up" in the class ranking.
posted by rough ashlar at 9:34 PM on October 1, 2010


Also, I would posit that, when both of the two opposing sides in a debate about racism and classism fail to understand the difference between classism and classicism, they both automatically lose and have to stop talking abou it.

Only one person has confused classism and classicism.

Non skin tone detectable? (and not an answer to the question: How, exactly is "Black Pride" not an expression of Racism?)

It's called an analogy. If you think black pride is racism, then it follows you must also think gay pride is heterophobia.

More directly, how is black pride racist? When your culture has been trod upon and claimed to be inferior for centuries, pride is merely leveling the playing field. Black pride does not imply white inferiority. (White pride, on the other hand, also claims to be egalitarian, but in practice you'll find it's a lie.)
posted by kmz at 9:35 PM on October 1, 2010


I'm not trolling; I genuinely believe that this thread is a decent space to argue about what Ron Paul says. AElfwine Evenstar helps me to elucidate my main point.

I think the argument can be made(successfully) that the declaration of war against the Nazis was a defensive war insofar as it was defending the ideals of democracy and freedom over fascism and authoritarianism.

I agree! But I think Dr. Paul would be against the concept of defending an ideal itself, to begin with. I agree with him that we shouldn't have gone to war in Iraq, but given that Afghan Taliban were a threat to the US via hosting Al-Qaeda and other groups, it's back to the Barbary Pirates level of polity from my perspective.

My Civil War point wasn't about the reasoning for the war at the time, but rather what Dr. Paul thinks about the Civil War today. It informs his views about what is acceptable and what is not, which leaves us with a consistent belief system, just simply one I disagree with. I think even Paul himself understands how unworkable total non-interventionism is, given that he worked very hard to find a loophole in his own philosophy, which I'd be happy to support.

posted by StrikeTheViol at 9:59 PM on October 1, 2010


More directly, how is black pride racist?

How would claims of "white pride" not be considered racist? If "Racism iz Racism" - can you show that a claim of "White Pride" would not be considered racist? (Stormfront.org excluded. Void where prohibited. Your mileage may vary due to road conditions.)

When your culture has been trod upon and claimed to be inferior for centuries

"your culture". What a loaded position. What "culture" is going to be claimed based on the melanin in the skin? What "culture" are you claiming as "yours"? The "culture" of Africa? The "culture" of slavery? Or, perhaps the "culture" of the Native Americans - who previously show up as "Black" once one does DNA testing in a case per NPR listening?

When one has a classist position or even a position of slavery going on, OF COURSE the group doing the slave holding is going to claim the slave class sucks VS the slave holders. How, exactly is the 'slave masters' gonna keep the 'slaves' down on the farm once they've seen gay Paris unless you claim you are better or you have the Divine right of being the King? What argument would slave holders use VS slaves other than "I'm better than you"? (see PETA and the 'humans are better than animals' for more on why the human should have control over some 'other' animal)
(and - how separated is the culture of various parts of Africa from other parts VS the culture of Cuba/the Dominican Republic/Haiti/African Americans....)

When The Holy Bible says 'make slaves of the people from neighboring lands' - are the slaves in a superior position?

When one speaks of a wage slave - is the wage slave in the superior position?

Hint: being a slave means you are getting the short, brown, sticky end of the stick.

And, at the point where you identify with being a slave VS a free man that means you don't feel unfettered and alive, people are calling you up for favors and your future is decided.

White pride, on the other hand, also claims to be egalitarian

I call bullshit on that.

But do, go ahead. Show the 'groups' making claims of "White Pride".

I genuinely believe that this thread is a decent space to argue about what Ron Paul says.

Alas, that's not what's up for chat. I'm guessing because no one really disagrees with it.
(how *that* for a troll eh?)
posted by rough ashlar at 10:14 PM on October 1, 2010


People can attack him personally but all you are doing is avoiding the issues he raises

Ron Paul's racism colors his ideas and explains their motivations. His previous statements about black males being terrorists, as an example, go a long way to explain his broader view about how the Constitution should be interpreted, how the federal government shouldn't interfere with business owners discriminating against blacks, or in keeping schools segregated, etc. It bears mention that those same views have been passed down to his son, Rand Paul, who is currently running for office.

In a lot of ways, his popularity and nationalist, "America First" politics remind me a lot of Charles Lindbergh. His political ideals are motivated by his latent hatred for non-White, non-Christian, non-straight Americans, and whatever rationalizations are required to keep the government from defending what he believes is his "right" (as well as mainstream society's "right") to hate.

If reading about his past record is "attacking him personally", then mainstream America needs to "attack him personally" a bit more often, for all the positive media coverage he otherwise seems to get.

Ridicule is among the strongest antidotes for the kind of totalitarian apartheid system that Paul would seem to like to see America live under. We seem to need more of that medicine these days, sadly.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:20 PM on October 1, 2010 [1 favorite]


But I think Dr. Paul would be against the concept of defending an ideal itself

I won't speculate on what Ron Paul thinks on this point as I haven't heard or read any statements addressing this particular issue. Either way WWII was, as I pointed out, a defensive war:

Not to mention they were allied with Japan who had attacked us. The Tripartite Pact was signed by Germany, Italy and Japan on September 27, 1940. We declared war against Geramany on December 11, 1941 four days after Japan attack us at Pearl Harbor so your argument that WWII was not a defensive war is not really accurate.

You said:

I think even Paul himself understands how unworkable total non-interventionism is, given that he worked very hard to find a loophole in his own philosophy, which I'd be happy to support.

I have to respectfully disagree with you on this point. There is a distinct difference between interventionist policies and a policy of self defense. Pirates are attacking our shipping lanes and like in the example of the Barbary Pirates we would be able to defend ships under our flag. I happen to disagree with Dr. Paul's idea to hire mercenaries to do our dirty work. In my opinion it is these types of situations for which you have a military so use it. In this case I think that Dr. Paul is taking his reading of what our founding fathers wrote to the extreme where he sees any type of military establishment as a threat to democracy and personal liberty.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 10:26 PM on October 1, 2010


One reason Ron Paul gets such a negative response is because his various Ron Paul newsletters published garbage like this for years under his name:

1990: "I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities."

1992, June: "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. ... What if the checks had never arrived? No doubt the blacks would have fully privatized the welfare state through continued looting. But they were paid off and the violence subsided."

1992, October: "[Carjacking] is the hip-hop thing to do among the urban youth who play unsuspecting whites like pianos... An ex-cop I know advises that if you have to use a gun on a youth, you should leave the scene immediately, disposing of the wiped off gun as soon as possible. Such a gun cannot, of course, be registered to you, but one bought privately (through the classifieds, for example).

I frankly don't know what to make of such advice, but even in my little town of Lake Jackson, Texas, I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming."


1994: Gays "enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick."

Paul has responded by saying that he didn't write any of this and that he has "publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name." But he's never outed the individual or individuals who did, or explained how this could go on under his nose for years and years without noticing it even once. This was essentially a fundraising newsletter, and Ron Paul made a significant amount of money publishing bigot porn.

Aside from that, though, there are plenty of other reasons to dislike Dr. Paul, like his constant re-introductions of his Sanctity of Life Act -- last year it was HR 2533 -- which would make blastocysts and zygotes into full-fledged American citizens under the Constitution, and anyone merely seeking an abortion into a potential defendant on an attempted murder charge.

Paul can be an inspiring anti-war speaker, but his mild-mannered demeanor obscures a fanatical, radical ideology that makes Glenn Beck look like a moderate.
posted by Missiles K. Monster at 10:33 PM on October 1, 2010 [8 favorites]


His previous statements about black males being terrorists, as an example

Do show that example.

With links.

(as what I remember seeing was that young black males were thiefs, not terrorists)

If reading about his past record is "attacking him personally", then mainstream America needs to "attack him personally" a bit more often

So rather than point out his inability to get legislation passed or even his votes on bills should be used as a metric, you'd rather see personal attacks?

Ridicule is among the strongest antidotes for the kind of totalitarian apartheid system that Paul would seem to like to see America live under. We seem to need more of [ridicule] these days, sadly.

So ridicule based on what *you think* someone else's position is - you'd like more of that?
(smacks more of 'I posted hurf durf, got called out and so now I'm saying why I've posted hurf durf or goggle ron paul')

Glenn Beck makes good money off of that business model. I'm not sure its helpful to the public discourse, but its sure makes Mr. Beck a member of the upper class.
posted by rough ashlar at 10:34 PM on October 1, 2010


his various Ron Paul newsletters published garbage like this for years under his name

I love it when those awful newsletters always get referred to with an asterisk, that they were "in his name" or "under his name" as opposed to being works by him, works which represent his views to his audience.

It's such a sneaky, underhanded way to shrug off responsibility for the content, after getting caught.

The logic is, basically, analogous to how fact-checkers went go through Sarah Palin's Going Rogue book and determined it is completely full of lies, and we're supposed to blame her ghostwriter.

The book was just "in her name"; she's not responsible for the fact that it contains garbage; she just didn't exercise editorial control. Likewise, Ron Paul isn't responsible for his publications, it's just "in his name"—his name just happens to be there, somewhere on the front page.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:42 PM on October 1, 2010


"I miss the closet"

I knew if I posted on gay issues - someone would provide a quote. (no links, but a quote)

Dr. Paul, like his constant re-introductions of his Sanctity of Life Act -- last year it was HR 2533 -- which would make blastocysts and zygotes into full-fledged American citizens under the Constitution

The good Doctor didn't stand up the Bush "anti Constitutionalism" and I don't believe he's ever stood up to the non-citizen status of Corporations. Feet of clay - just like all the other bastards. (ok, most. All 'cuz it hasn't changed)

Given his history of non-passage - why worry about 2533 when audit the fed can't pass?

Paul can be an inspiring anti-war speaker

Well, here on The Blue, being anti-war was "cool" when Bush II was in charge, but now that Obama is the leader - not so much.
posted by rough ashlar at 10:48 PM on October 1, 2010


Do show that example.
Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good sense survives at the grass roots. Many more are going to have difficultly avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color of their skin. This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for many, entirely unavoidable.

...

Taken from the Ron Paul Political Report, 1120 NASA Blvd., Suite 104,
Houston, TX 77058 for $50 per year. Call 1-800-766-7285.
This quote has been cited and confirmed in many forms on other sites, as well. Of course, Paul denies having written those words, while they went out "under his name" to paid-up subscribers.

This is just one display of the kind of bigotry that Ron Paul believes in. Maybe America doesn't need another Lindbergh baby.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:50 PM on October 1, 2010


It's such a sneaky, underhanded way to shrug off responsibility for the content, after getting caught.

VS - what? The accountability of *OTHER* of the rarefied class of Washington politician?

went go through Sarah Palin's Going Rogue book and determined it is completely full of lies

Come now, not completely full.

There has to be some truth. Unless she is not a she or his/her name is not Sarah Palin?
posted by rough ashlar at 10:52 PM on October 1, 2010


I love it when those awful newsletters always get referred to with an asterisk, that they were "in his name"

I believe Ron Paul when he says he didn't write the words in his newsletters. The current thinking is that Paul's former congressional chief-of-staff, Lew Rockwell, wrote them, which Rockwell denies.

Either way, Paul's claims he didn't know this was going on, and that he has no idea who wrote them do not hold water. As far as I know, he has never even publicly uttered the phrase, "I'm sorry," about it.
posted by Missiles K. Monster at 10:59 PM on October 1, 2010


What if I'd been told that I was entitled to a pony ride, but then someone else pointed out that I'd gorged myself on cotton candy and corn dogs and that a pony ride would only make me sick?
posted by Graygorey at 11:01 PM on October 1, 2010


our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color of their skin.

Ok so you mention skin tone. Thank you.

black males being terrorists

Brown != black.

(insert snark about brown skin ppl being terrorist per 2008-bush-in-charge comments by various Blue posters who are now quiet when the same kind of killings go on now)

I did ask for 'black males being terrorists' and while skin tone is noted - its not black and no sex is stated. LOS ANGELES RACIAL TERRORISM is the title - is that the title from Paul or someone else?
posted by rough ashlar at 11:03 PM on October 1, 2010


Blaze I could care less whether Ron Paul succeeds politically. What I do care about is that his views on foreign policy are promulgated and considered in an objective matter. Because, Paul's racism has nothing to do with the very important issues that he raises in this regard. Even if he personally holds those positions because of personal racist beliefs. That, in my opinion, has nothing to do with the validity of the ideas in and of themselves.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 11:04 PM on October 1, 2010 [1 favorite]


I believe Ron Paul when he says he didn't write the words in his newsletters

Doesn't excuse him however.
posted by rough ashlar at 11:05 PM on October 1, 2010


Brown != black.

Since you failed to read it, I will quote more of it for you:
The criminals who terrorize our cities--in riots and on every non-riot day--are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are.

...

The cause of the riots is plain: barbarism. If the barbarians cannot loot sufficiently through legal channels (i.e., the riots being the welfare-state minus the middleman), they resort to illegal ones, to terrorism.

...

Rather than call for even minimal standards of justice, the Establishment coalesced into its excusemaking mode, justifying black terrorism in various ways. It was caused by poverty, frustration, "12 years of neglect," etc., but never evil.

...

Terrorism swept America. In Las Vegas, for example, a white man was pulled out of his car and severely beaten by blacks breaking up from an anti-white rally at l0:30 pm.

...

Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good sense survives at the grass roots. Many more are going to have difficultly avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color of their skin. This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for many, entirely unavoidable.

Of black males in Washington, D.C, between the ages of 18 and 35, 42% are charged with a crime or are serving a sentence, reports the National Center on Institutions and Alternatives. The Center also reports that 70% of all black men in Washington are arrested before they reach the age of 35, and 85% are arrested at some point in their lives. Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the "criminal justice system," I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal. (emph. added)
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:18 PM on October 1, 2010 [1 favorite]


Paul's racism has nothing to do with the very important issues that he raises in this regard. Even if he personally holds those positions because of personal racist beliefs

The notion that the ends justify the means, and that we should GOOGLE RON PAUL in spite of his massive failure to be a decent human being, is the reason why we have the foreign policy we have in the first place.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:32 PM on October 1, 2010 [4 favorites]


What I do care about is that his views on foreign policy are promulgated and considered in an objective matter.

"Objective" -- by whose standards -- yours?
posted by blucevalo at 11:36 PM on October 1, 2010


If I was forcing you to use certain standards it wouldn't be very objective would it. I guess what I meant in a reasonable/logical/fair/balanced/nuanced manner.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 11:53 PM on October 1, 2010


oh for christ sakes I have to go to bed I can't type coherent sentence anymore....I guess what I meant was in a reasonable ........
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 11:55 PM on October 1, 2010


I think the animator saw What Barry Says and thought "I could do that!"

They were wrong.
posted by WPW at 2:49 AM on October 2, 2010


I have no interest whatsoever in the opinions of evolution deniers. Such people have removed themselves from the arena of those worth listening to.
posted by Decani at 3:06 AM on October 2, 2010 [1 favorite]


Hitler had some nice ideas about vegetarianism.
(And yes, I went there. Paul's a dangerous fucker)
posted by angrycat at 4:46 AM on October 2, 2010


Well, here on The Blue, being anti-war was "cool" when Bush II was in charge, but now that Obama is the leader - not so much.

Are you even reading the same web site I am? How can you possibly think this? Is this just a kneejerk MeFite bash?
posted by JHarris at 4:50 AM on October 2, 2010 [2 favorites]


How can you possibly think this?

If I felt actually taking the news topics from, say, CNN over time compare the topics to FPPs during Bush VS Obama and showed hard numbers would change your mind I *might* consider going through all that work.

Same with going poster by poster - tracking who said what when condition X happened then try to come up with motive. Perhaps their motives are simple burnout and has nothing to do with party politics.

The most recent thing I can think of that I did not see on the Blue that I did see elsewhere is the secret assassination kefluffel. Rather sure that would have been worth 2-3 FPP's Same with the 'withdraw' from Iraq. The angles of 'just a name change', how much is being spent, even the uptick of violence in the green zone - not seeing the posts here.

And if someone DID go ahead and make FPP's no one would spend their time calling out the posters who flip-flop on 'war is bad' with the last guy to 'cut him slack - delt a bad hand' .

So really - where's *MY* incentive to waste all of *my* time to track a bunch of ppl on an internet forum for a hypocrite call out in an attempt to persuade you?

Especially when I'd be one of the called out based on past postings.
posted by rough ashlar at 6:08 AM on October 2, 2010


Since you failed to read it

I did a word search on terrorism and found out Konqueror doesn't work the same as Firefox.

, justifying black terrorism in various ways

Yup. Right there. Mea Culpa.

Paul's a dangerous fucker

1) Who in Congress isn't? (no, really. If you sit a large swath of people down with the DSM they are gonna get labeled. 8-12% of the population are sociopaths and sure does seem they rise to the top and that behavior is modeled via the Corporations. Corporations end up selecting who gets in to the halls of power.....)
2) Can't be that dangerous - he doesn't get legislation through.
posted by rough ashlar at 6:16 AM on October 2, 2010


Just pretend that somebody else you don't know asked these same questions. They are great questions. The questions he posed should be the most asked and discussed questions in the 2010 and 2012 elections. In the days and weeks after 9/11, we were asking some of these questions. But the idea that American foreign policy could have contributed to the attacks was immediately dismissed by virtue of "American Exceptionalism" (everything we do as a nation is correct and better than everybody else so it can't, by definition, be our fault). Then we stopped asking the questions, and consumed the propaganda that they hate us because we are free, and started dropping bombs. Yes, the dude is nutty on many issues. But my hats off to him for asking these questions.
posted by Seymour Zamboni at 7:58 AM on October 2, 2010


Stopped clock - twice a day.
posted by warbaby at 8:36 AM on October 2, 2010


listen, if i see some wise saying written in shit on an asylum wall, I'm going to consider that context when evaluating said wisdom
posted by angrycat at 8:45 AM on October 2, 2010


The unsaid thing about libertarianism is the implication that corporations also have rights, and should be unencumbered by government.

That is what made me realize Libertarianism is a dead end as a political ideology. And it's why conservatives embrace it. They don't give a rat's ass about personal liberties, or they wouldn't care about gay marriage or legalization/decriminalization of drugs and prostitution. What they want to do is to abolish unions, OSHA, the EPA. Any service that government provides that does not directly benefit commerce should be done away with. Any agency that puts any restriction on commerce should be discarded. Yes, that's a ridiculous extreme - but it's at the heart of the ideology. If you think that extreme ideologies can't find their way into practice, then you haven't been paying attention.

Communism puts Business at the service of the State. Fascism puts the State at the service of Business. Neither extreme is a good idea.

I look at it like this: the economy (if not the whole of society) is like a nuclear reactor. Ideally, it's a controlled reaction. Some factions want zero risk or total control, and they wind up killing the reaction. Other factions want it to generate as much energy as possible, even though that means instant meltdown. The proper way to run a nuclear reactor is somewhere in the middle. Extreme ideologies are not the way to run a nuclear reactor, and they aren't the way to run a country.
posted by Xoebe at 9:17 AM on October 2, 2010


The notion that the ends justify the means, and that we should GOOGLE RON PAUL in spite of his massive failure to be a decent human being, is the reason why we have the foreign policy we have in the first place.
posted by Blazecock Pileon


This reminds me of an anti-gang PSA from many years ago that showed images of various racist groups in america (KKK, neo-nazis) and listed how many blacks they had killed. Then they showed that gang members killed other blacks at a rate such that they surpassed the total for the last 100 years of these racist groups in a single day (or week or something).

So, because the ends don't justify the means, the moral position is that we should support Obama's bombing of Afghanistan and Pakistan because he's not racist, and reject the racist policies of Ron Paul that don't kill people?
I wonder if the family members of that wedding party hit by a predator bomb are comforted by the fact that we don't have a racist in charge of american foreign policy.
posted by 445supermag at 9:23 AM on October 2, 2010


For the most part the civil war was an economic war. Slavery was not Lincoln's main concern, saving the Union was.

Correct. Unfortunately Lincoln wasn't the only party or even the agressor party in the American Civil War. If we look at what was actually written by the aggressors in their formal declarations of secession, we find statements such as:
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world."
(Mississippi, second sentence)
For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.
(Georgia, second sentence)
But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.
(South Carolina)
Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?
(Texas - third paragraph)

There was precisely one economic issue that mattered when the Confederates seceded from the United States of America and then promptly attacked it. That economic issue was slavery - and they were openly proclaiming that
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner–stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition.
(Cornerstone Speech by Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederate States of America)

The Confederates of the time in their official documents were citing slavery as the reason for secession. Slavery as the one economic issue. So to say it wasn't about slavery is simply wrong. Unless there was a darker moral issue at work and the Confederacy was merely using slavery as an excuse to cover up more evil crimes.
posted by Francis at 9:31 AM on October 2, 2010 [4 favorites]


... so a prevalent wisdom in this thread seems to be: if I agree with a bunch of pivotal things a man says (who in the past has said some things I violently disagree with), I must ignore this sense of agreement and focus on the past violence.

Though I understand this (and have no doubt played the same card myself), it saddens me as it shows a tendency (among some rather intelligent, informed people) to focus on evidence of division when branches of connection are being offered.

I'm not saying we should just open our arms and hug every nimrod who ever spewed stupid, racist, divisive, inhuman bullshit. I am saying that if the only alternative is an outright refusal to engage, it makes me feel kind of doomed.
posted by philip-random at 9:52 AM on October 2, 2010 [1 favorite]


this is isolationism wrapped up in a pretty bow for the left

here's a what if, for you, Ron: What if we had intervened in Rwanda and prevented the slaughter there? What fucking if, hmm?
posted by angrycat at 10:00 AM on October 2, 2010




and if God hadn't created the universe we wouldn't have to deal with any of it. Stupid God.
posted by angrycat at 10:31 AM on October 2, 2010


and if we don't create future Rwandas by our actions now, we won't have to deal with them in the future. Or do brown people just naturally need the occasional bombing to keep them from committing genocide?
posted by 445supermag at 10:36 AM on October 2, 2010




okay, yeah. i hate the drones. i hate the war in Afghanistan. Was opposed to the invasion. Hated the war in Iraq with greater passion.

But -- as the world's current mightiest military force, we are the ones with the greatest capability to get shit done. I'd argue that the Bosina intervention was justified. And we should have helped the people in Rwanda, too. Does it matter why Hutus were killing Tutsis?
posted by angrycat at 11:56 AM on October 2, 2010


if I agree with a bunch of pivotal things a man says (who in the past has said some things I violently disagree with), I must ignore this sense of agreement and focus on the past violence.

The problem with Ron Paul is that the sensible things he says get ignored by the people who are supposed to be on his side, and nothing you or I can say will get them to pay attention to them. Meanwhile, they are embracing his lunatic ideas.

So what would "embracing this sense of agreement" consist of, and how could we accomplish anything with it?
posted by Jimmy Havok at 12:15 PM on October 2, 2010


Does it matter why Hutus were killing Tutsis?

Yes, because the Sunnis and the Shia and the Kurds will be killing each for similar reasons. As will the Pashtuns and the Tajiks.
posted by 445supermag at 12:16 PM on October 2, 2010


rough ashlar wrote: "Well, here on The Blue, being anti-war was "cool" when Bush II was in charge, but now that Obama is the leader - not so much."

That's not true at all. The vast majority of us are still against our present foreign adventures. You may be correct that there are fewer FPPs about them, but the underlying sentiment hasn't really changed.
posted by wierdo at 12:23 PM on October 2, 2010


If I felt actually taking the news topics from, say, CNN over time compare the topics to FPPs during Bush VS Obama and showed hard numbers would change your mind I *might* consider going through all that work.

If you don't feel like it then don't do it, although you're not going to get us to blithely accept we're all suddenly jingoist imperialists just from your say-so without it, and if you're not trying to do that then why the hell are you here anyway?

We probably won't accept it even if you provided what you claim would be proof, for that matter. Correlation doesn't mean causation.

So really - where's *MY* incentive to waste all of *my* time to track a bunch of ppl on an internet forum for a hypocrite call out in an attempt to persuade you?

Yeah, well what's your incentive for cluing us all in on your mADD wIsDOmZ so frequently in this thread? Why not make one long comment smacking down all us self-righteous liberal hypocrites in a blaze of white-hot righteous fury instead of a hundred little ones, you'd probably save yourself a lot of time and effort. If you're going to go in a step go in a mile. You can at least stand up for your own opinions, can't you?

I'm going with 1. I'll let others slug out non #1 options on what appears like a fine trolling job.

Takes one to know one, bunky.
posted by JHarris at 1:38 PM on October 2, 2010


Nobody will know if you forget to post some anti-libertarian screed in every thread about ron paul, half of this thread. NO ONE WILL KNOW
posted by tehloki at 8:21 PM on October 2, 2010


Libertarianism is a dead end as a political ideology

They've not shown they can lead or deliver "cargo" to the people. In this libertarian paradise of the future, they'll need a working court system. Yet, for yucks, ask Libertarian officials their plan to show they can lead and provide value by doing something right now - organize a court watching program. You are asking them do actual work and they'll have none of it.

blithely accept we're all suddenly jingoist imperialists

Some rather big $0.50 words from you. When will you be about to afford the expensive $2.00 pHD words?

(Oh and I see few stepping away from the various benefits of empire. But perhaps you can explain to us all how you don't benefit from the Federal Reserve Note as the international unit of trade as an example.)

We probably won't accept it

Well right there - if you would not accept facts - shows its not worth *MY* time to sort it out to show your position is wrong.

You can at least stand up for your own opinions, can't you?

See We probably won't accept it

Might want to look into some attention span expanding meditation or drugs.

You may be correct that there are fewer FPPs about them, but the underlying sentiment hasn't really changed.

I know the truthyness that there are fewer - but *meh* not worth trying to show the numbers. Those who say 'show proof' just said they won't accept the proof. (rather like Primus Paris)

The ones who squawked loudly WRT Bush actions for X, said little during the now for mostly similar X....I'll get to see if they suddenly start squawking again once the D becomes and R.

It seems the biggest reaction is not to a continuation of old insults but to new ones. More comments about a change in hope to the new (and stopped for now) COICA centric stuff - but that may be because an electronic medium will attact people attuned to electronic issues.

The items fought against/thought to be "over the top" eventually become the habits of tomorrow.

At one time anyone could challenge a law as not being constitutional. I'm rather sure some of the people of the mid 1920's were aghast at you having to show standing. Now today - how often do you hear about the standing issue? The 'wet dream' of authoritarian leaders would have been tools people carried about showing your location....now cell phones.
posted by rough ashlar at 5:51 PM on October 3, 2010



The ones who squawked loudly WRT Bush actions for X, said little during the now for mostly similar X....I'll get to see if they suddenly start squawking again once the D becomes and R.


Without debating the merits of your equivalency, it doesn't help your argument to essentially claim that fewer of us on the left care about war because the party the most close to our ideals is in control of the House and the Executive branch.

How could I prove my sincerity to you? By going to Afghanistan and engaging in relief aid? I'm physically unable to do that, but what I will do is vote for the candidate who I believe will enact or help enact the most humane foreign policy.
posted by angrycat at 7:45 PM on October 3, 2010


« Older For all your css-based text shadowing needs   |   How to Analyze People on Sight, 1921 Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post