Ron Beats Rudy in NH?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

Here’s the Judge on video talking a bit about Lincoln and the civil war. Just thought I’d throw this in here, with the discussion going on and all. It’s posted on Reason magazine. Start it no later than the 10:50 mark. However, the whole speech is pretty provocative, so I’d suggest at least viewing it once all the way through.

“Who [is] the greatest violator of the Constitution?” asks Napolitano. “George W. Bush has shown less fidelity to the Constitution than any president since Abraham Lincoln.”

122

The Judge on a radio interview.

123

Sloth,

Please change the avatar.

Thanks.

Thunder/DrS, nommy, let’s not get sidetracked.

ron paul is stating (in his irritating/arrogant way) that the Civil War was a vehicle for Lincoln to extend his power.

He’s stating that Lincoln had an easy solution to slavery and he CHOSE not to use it.

Again, in a effort to extend his power.

Let’s not get side-tracked with what means he used to win the Civil War.

Let’s focus on the simple fact that Southern states were seceding BEFORE HE WAS INAUGURATED.

They seceded. They fired the first shots.

No one with a rudimentary understanding of history would make the argument that it was just a power grab by Lincoln.

How in the name of GOD was he going to buy slaves from people who had set up another Government, considered themselves sovereign, and were willing to shed blood to defend the institution of slavery?

ron paul is a fraud.

There’s a reason he hasn’t risen any higher. There’s are reasons his own party thinks he’s a nut.

JeffR

124

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Sloth,

Please change the avatar.

[/quote]

No.

125

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Sloth,

Thunder/DrS, nommy, let’s not get sidetracked.

ron paul is stating (in his irritating/arrogant way) that the Civil War was a vehicle for Lincoln to extend his power.

He’s stating that Lincoln had an easy solution to slavery and he CHOSE not to use it.

Again, in a effort to extend his power.

Let’s not get side-tracked with what means he used to win the Civil War.

Let’s focus on the simple fact that Southern states were seceding BEFORE HE WAS INAUGURATED.

They seceded. They fired the first shots.

No one with a rudimentary understanding of history would make the argument that it was just a power grab by Lincoln.

How in the name of GOD was he going to buy slaves from people who had set up another Government, considered themselves sovereign, and were willing to shed blood to defend the institution of slavery?

ron paul is a fraud.

There’s a reason he hasn’t risen any higher. There’s are reasons his own party thinks he’s a nut.

JeffR[/quote]

Agreed…of course! TB and I have, in pieces, reviewed much of what you say here.

But the problem with maniacs/fanatics/conspiracy loons and others who adhere to rantings of a Lew Rockwell (Ron Paul’s muse?), is that they will not acknowledge documented, easily verifiable historical facts. History is not bunk, especially when it is so clear. For the looney, facts are maleable, dates are irelevant, and the only snippets that are allowed are those that support the fallacy.
Can’t “debate” with those types. (See Nominal Petulance, above.)

Now, back to the thread…

126

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Sloth,

Thunder/DrS, nommy, let’s not get sidetracked.

ron paul is stating (in his irritating/arrogant way) that the Civil War was a vehicle for Lincoln to extend his power.

He’s stating that Lincoln had an easy solution to slavery and he CHOSE not to use it.

Again, in a effort to extend his power.

Let’s not get side-tracked with what means he used to win the Civil War.

Let’s focus on the simple fact that Southern states were seceding BEFORE HE WAS INAUGURATED.

They seceded. They fired the first shots.

No one with a rudimentary understanding of history would make the argument that it was just a power grab by Lincoln.

How in the name of GOD was he going to buy slaves from people who had set up another Government, considered themselves sovereign, and were willing to shed blood to defend the institution of slavery?

ron paul is a fraud.

There’s a reason he hasn’t risen any higher. There’s are reasons his own party thinks he’s a nut.

JeffR

Agreed…of course! TB and I have, in pieces, reviewed much of what you say here.

But the problem with maniacs/fanatics/conspiracy loons and others who adhere to rantings of a Lew Rockwell (Ron Paul’s muse?), is that they will not acknowledge documented, easily verifiable historical facts. History is not bunk, especially when it is so clear. For the looney, facts are maleable, dates are irelevant, and the only snippets that are allowed are those that support the fallacy.
Can’t “debate” with those types. (See Nominal Petulance, above.)

Now, back to the thread…
[/quote]

Dr.Skeptix,

There is another possibility. I’ve been thinking that no educated man could claim that the Civil War was a power grab by Lincoln.

Is it possible that ron paul expects that his followers to be ignorant and lazy?

Seriously, with a point so easily verified, I’m thinking this is ron paul’s mo.

Manipulate the facts to suit his own version of Constitutionality and non-interventionalism.

What’s frightening is that you have at least two posters here: lifty/nommy who have swallowed this nonsense hook, line, and sinker.

They remind me of a mass of hypnotized zombies. Imagine blank faces, stiff limbs, and a monotone chant of, “ron paul is God. ron paul is God.”

JeffR

127


Sloth, this new avatar is not much of an improvement.

Actually, I see a trend developing: Paul, Buchanan, Obama, Carter.

Allow me to supply the next logical progression in the series.

128


Or perhaps…

129

…or maybe you’d prefer…

130

…but probably not this one. Might be misconstrued.

131

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
orion wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

Pakistan did not exist when the British occupied India and Kosovo that has never been occupied by the SU but was part of communist but independent Yugoslavia.

So what is your point?

Other then that India and Pakistan splitted remarkably peaceful without GB

Huh? About two million people died. Partition was a fucking disaster. What on earth are you talking about?

2 million out of how many?

They could have been a giant balcans but they weren`t.

G$–
Orion here is following his tradition of moral relativism; 2 million is relative to some other number (perhaps 400 million at the time of the Partition) and therefore cannot weigh heavily on the imagination!
But that is 2 million, say, out of the 100 million in Sindh, Rajahstan, and Bengal who were hacked to death with machetes, or 20 million who were sent homeless through the desert…
So, to a relativist, like Orion, that is relatively light, relatively speaking!

It wasn’t. It was a disaster. Orion does know what he is talking about, but he would rather dissimilate than admit he was wrong.

And Orion now stands with Stalin, who said, “A single murder is a tragedy; but a million murders is a statistic.”

[/quote]

5 percent of 400 million are bloody riots.

10 percent maybe a civil war.

20 and up attempted genocide.

0,5 percent, i.e 2 million out of 400 are birth pains.

And yes there are no moral absolutes.

So sorry, grow up.

132

[quote]Sloth wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Sloth,

Please change the avatar.

No.

[/quote]

I find the last few amusing. Dukakis next please.

133

[quote]JeffR wrote:

Dr.Skeptix,

There is another possibility. I’ve been thinking that no educated man could claim that the Civil War was a power grab by Lincoln.

Is it possible that ron paul expects that his followers to be ignorant and lazy?

Seriously, with a point so easily verified, I’m thinking this is ron paul’s mo.

Manipulate the facts to suit his own version of Constitutionality and non-interventionalism.

What’s frightening is that you have at least two posters here: lifty/nommy who have swallowed this nonsense hook, line, and sinker.

They remind me of a mass of hypnotized zombies. Imagine blank faces, stiff limbs, and a monotone chant of, “ron paul is God. ron paul is God.”

JeffR[/quote]

Very true, and I have been thinking - isn’t a libertarian someone who advocates the spread and extension of liberty to all humans?

It would seem that in furtherance of that goal, libertarians wouldn’t really care what level of government extended liberty once denied, so long as that level of government did so under its designated powers - i.e., via its legislature, voting in accordance with its prescribed constitutional mechanics.

Whether federal or state, as long as liberty was being advanced, a libertarian would be happy. A perfect example in the modern era is the number of libertarians who side with left-liberals on “activist judges” protecting liberties discovered in the Constitution.

Then I realized, after reviewing the arguments of the Rothbardians w/r/t the Civil War - they aren’t libertarians, they are nihilists.

Libertarians believe in natural law - moral absolutes regarding the inalienable right to liberty making up their cause. Rothbardians don’t believe in moral absolutes, per their own admission - so freedom is no better than slavery, individualism no better than collectivism. As such, the slavery of the Confederate South - while obnoxious to true libertarians, who believe in the natural law of personal liberty - was perfectly defendable by the Rothbardians as nihilists. Nihilists aren’t interested in broad principles as they apply/should apply to humanity, as libertarianism certainly is - they are self-interested, and “if one man should enslave another, it’s not a third man’s business”.

It’s an important distinction, I think - and I think Rothbardians make libertarians look bad. We already see libertarians distancing themselves.

And, of course, we see what folks think of Rothabrdianism - even in quirky NH, which prides itself on its independence and libertarian streak, threw a Rothbardian under the bus.

135

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
JeffR wrote:

Dr.Skeptix,

There is another possibility. I’ve been thinking that no educated man could claim that the Civil War was a power grab by Lincoln.

Is it possible that ron paul expects that his followers to be ignorant and lazy?

Seriously, with a point so easily verified, I’m thinking this is ron paul’s mo.

Manipulate the facts to suit his own version of Constitutionality and non-interventionalism.

What’s frightening is that you have at least two posters here: lifty/nommy who have swallowed this nonsense hook, line, and sinker.

They remind me of a mass of hypnotized zombies. Imagine blank faces, stiff limbs, and a monotone chant of, “ron paul is God. ron paul is God.”

JeffR

Very true, and I have been thinking - isn’t a libertarian someone who advocates the spread and extension of liberty to all humans?

It would seem that in furtherance of that goal, libertarians wouldn’t really care what level of government extended liberty once denied, so long as that level of government did so under its designated powers - i.e., via its legislature, voting in accordance with its prescribed constitutional mechanics.

Whether federal or state, as long as liberty was being advanced, a libertarian would be happy. A perfect example in the modern era is the number of libertarians who side with left-liberals on “activist judges” protecting liberties discovered in the Constitution.

Then I realized, after reviewing the arguments of the Rothbardians w/r/t the Civil War - they aren’t libertarians, they are nihilists.

Libertarians believe in natural law - moral absolutes regarding the inalienable right to liberty making up their cause. Rothbardians don’t believe in moral absolutes, per their own admission - so freedom is no better than slavery, individualism no better than collectivism. As such, the slavery of the Confederate South - while obnoxious to true libertarians, who believe in the natural law of personal liberty - was perfectly defendable by the Rothbardians as nihilists. Nihilists aren’t interested in broad principles as they apply/should apply to humanity, as libertarianism certainly is - they are self-interested, and “if one man should enslave another, it’s not a third man’s business”.

It’s an important distinction, I think - and I think Rothbardians make libertarians look bad. We already see libertarians distancing themselves.

And, of course, we see what folks think of Rothabrdianism - even in quirky NH, which prides itself on its independence and libertarian streak, threw a Rothbardian under the bus. [/quote]

Do you masturbate while writing such drivel?

It could not possibly serve a different purpose?

136

[quote]orion wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
JeffR wrote:

Dr.Skeptix,

There is another possibility. I’ve been thinking that no educated man could claim that the Civil War was a power grab by Lincoln.

Is it possible that ron paul expects that his followers to be ignorant and lazy?

Seriously, with a point so easily verified, I’m thinking this is ron paul’s mo.

Manipulate the facts to suit his own version of Constitutionality and non-interventionalism.

What’s frightening is that you have at least two posters here: lifty/nommy who have swallowed this nonsense hook, line, and sinker.

They remind me of a mass of hypnotized zombies. Imagine blank faces, stiff limbs, and a monotone chant of, “ron paul is God. ron paul is God.”

JeffR

Very true, and I have been thinking - isn’t a libertarian someone who advocates the spread and extension of liberty to all humans?

It would seem that in furtherance of that goal, libertarians wouldn’t really care what level of government extended liberty once denied, so long as that level of government did so under its designated powers - i.e., via its legislature, voting in accordance with its prescribed constitutional mechanics.

Whether federal or state, as long as liberty was being advanced, a libertarian would be happy. A perfect example in the modern era is the number of libertarians who side with left-liberals on “activist judges” protecting liberties discovered in the Constitution.

Then I realized, after reviewing the arguments of the Rothbardians w/r/t the Civil War - they aren’t libertarians, they are nihilists.

Libertarians believe in natural law - moral absolutes regarding the inalienable right to liberty making up their cause. Rothbardians don’t believe in moral absolutes, per their own admission - so freedom is no better than slavery, individualism no better than collectivism. As such, the slavery of the Confederate South - while obnoxious to true libertarians, who believe in the natural law of personal liberty - was perfectly defendable by the Rothbardians as nihilists. Nihilists aren’t interested in broad principles as they apply/should apply to humanity, as libertarianism certainly is - they are self-interested, and “if one man should enslave another, it’s not a third man’s business”.

It’s an important distinction, I think - and I think Rothbardians make libertarians look bad. We already see libertarians distancing themselves.

And, of course, we see what folks think of Rothabrdianism - even in quirky NH, which prides itself on its independence and libertarian streak, threw a Rothbardian under the bus.

Do you masturbate while writing such drivel?

It could not possibly serve a different purpose?

[/quote]

Translation: I (bota) cannot understand anything beyond my own inferiority complex.

Thunder:

Interesting take. I happen to give ron paul the benefit of the doubt regarding his intelligence.

Acknowledging his intelligence makes his stances more frightening. I sense a demagogue.

JeffR

137

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:

Ron Paul HAD a chance and that chance is now gone.
That’s the truth of the matter.

Wrong Nommy, his chances were exactly what I said they were last summer on this very forum; ZERO. And for the very reasons that I tried to beat into your inexperienced skull:

  1. No national political organization

  2. Underfunded

  3. No charisma

  4. He comes off like an old crank-not presidential.

The only “chance” he ever had was with the young and impressionable who have not lived long enough to see these types go through the system.

You were WRONG.[/quote]

Mick,

Serious question: Who do you think a ron paul “independent” run would hurt in the general?

My knee-jerk reaction is that it would hurt a Republican.

However, I’m not so sure. If you look at the posters on this very board, you’ll find people who normally don’t vote Republican anyway.

For instance Mr. Independent (gdollars) will default to pulling the all democratic lever. He’ll rant and rave about “punishing the Republicans.” Then he’ll reward his democratic friends. However, if ron paul was on the ballot, he could satisfy his desperate need to be unique.

That’s one less democratic vote.

Then there is lifty/nommy. If they are old enough to vote, they’d never vote Republican.

However, I’m not sure these two would vote for a democrat either. The most likely scenario is they’d vote for a communist, Zsa Zsa Gabor, or stay home.

The only guy on here that the Good Guys could lose would be Mike.

However, I get the impression that he’s beginning to see through ron paul. I’ll bet he senses the naked ambition and the propensity to manipulate the facts to suit his own ends.

JeffR

138

[quote]Sloth wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Sloth,

Please change the avatar.

No.

[/quote]

Sloth,

Thanks for the change.

JeffR

139

[quote]JeffR wrote:
… I happen to give ron paul the benefit of the doubt regarding his intelligence.

Acknowledging his intelligence makes his stances more frightening. I sense a demagogue.

JeffR

[/quote]

I agree. He cannot be that stupid.

140

[quote]JeffR wrote:

Translation: I (bota) cannot understand anything beyond my own inferiority complex.

Thunder:

Interesting take. I happen to give ron paul the benefit of the doubt regarding his intelligence.

Acknowledging his intelligence makes his stances more frightening. I sense a demagogue.

JeffR

[/quote]

I understand him perfectly well.

That is why he is either an idiot, which I doubt, or willfully ignorant, which is also unlikely, or he draws a perverse joy out of erecting intellectually dishonest strawmen.

I am pointing out the possibilities here, for you lack the mental capacity to make the necessary distinctions.

Or the fact that you are allowed to carry a gun at work has let your reasoning skills atrophy.

Those that were there to begin with.