If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Philly.com)   Paul is in party of Lincoln, but rejects what he stood for. You can't explain that   (philly.com) divider line 249
    More: Dumbass, Reagan White House, human beings, American Spectator, William F. Buckley, Paul campaign, Articles of Confederation, secession, original intent  
•       •       •

2695 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Jan 2012 at 1:39 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



249 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-01-16 12:07:16 AM
lincoln was a railroad whore.

ron paul is not.
 
2012-01-16 12:12:56 AM

Bauer: lincoln was a railroad whore.

ron paul is not.


Railroads let the north invade the south. And I heard she liked it.
 
2012-01-16 12:19:28 AM

Bauer: lincoln was a railroad whore.

ron paul is not.


No, RON PAUL is more of a whore for his district given how much money he brings home while railing against earmarks.
 
2012-01-16 01:28:49 AM
The author of the article immediately ignores Ron Paul's actual arguments and immediately makes the argument: a supporter of Ron Paul who also believes this is a neo-Confederate and then implies again and again that therefore Paul must be a new-Confederate.

That's actually not an argument at all.

Listen to John McWhorter and Glenn Loury address Ron Paul's argument.

the atlantic (new window)

Eavesdrop on the Web's Most Interesting Ron Paul Debate

Jan 2 2012, 8:00 AM ET

Glenn Loury and John McWhorter take on the Texas Congressman, his foreign policy views, and his offensive newsletter

The Bloggingheads.tv episodes featuring The New Republic's John McWhorter alongside Brown University's Glenn Loury are consistently among the most interesting and delightful exchanges in American public discourse. These are two men who tend to elicit the best from one another, and who aren't afraid to follow their always formidable thoughts to where they lead.

In the exchange above, they discuss Ron Paul, managing to articulate both his appeal and the most serious objections to his candidacy. I've embedded it mostly so you watch the entire clip. What I found most penetrating was the insight that typically Paul's opponents don't bother to marshal an argument for why he is wrong about foreign policy or the Federal Reserve system. Instead they treat certain of his positions as though even discussing them is verboten. Doing so is corrosive to American public discourse regardless of who is ultimately correct. McWhorter and Loury think that Paul is sometimes right and other times dangerously wrong.
 
2012-01-16 01:30:51 AM
So, what's Lincoln's policy on internet piracy?
 
2012-01-16 01:37:45 AM

Bucky Katt: So, what's Lincoln's policy on internet piracy?


fwiw, Paul seems to oppose SOPA

https://www.google.com/search?q=ron+paul+sopa
 
2012-01-16 02:39:27 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Bauer: lincoln was a railroad whore.

ron paul is not.

No, RON PAUL is more of a whore for his district given how much money he brings home while railing against earmarks.


well...at least ron paul doesn't want to send poor black kids to die for the american empire.

lincoln wanted to ship all black people back to africa...because he was a racist, and felt that "they" would never fit in with "american society".

the civil war was over taxes, way more than it ever was about slavery.

the founding fathers were a bunch of elitist pimps...if ever there were any.

"3/5ths" of a person?

who writes shiat like that?
 
2012-01-16 03:01:08 AM
So we're judging Paul by the writings of someone else - again?

And did Lincoln move the US toward a Centralized Authoritarian Government, or didn't he?
 
2012-01-16 03:14:42 AM
I too sometimes think Lincoln should have just let the South go. Just think of how far the United States could have progressed by now without the South always dragging its heals on any level of progress, civil rights, and modernization.
 
2012-01-16 06:09:03 AM
Well, Dr. Martin Luther King was too, but look at which party gets most votes from that particular demographic.
 
2012-01-16 06:52:21 AM

WorldCitizen: I too sometimes think Lincoln should have just let the South go. Just think of how far the United States could have progressed by now without the South always dragging its heals on any level of progress, civil rights, and modernization.


Hell, considering the first tractors started coming out 20 years after the civil war, slavery would have likely died a natural death in the south in the 1890's or so.
 
2012-01-16 06:57:26 AM

brerrabbit: Hell, considering the first tractors started coming out 20 years after the civil war, slavery would have likely died a natural death in the south in the 1890's or so.


Yes just like the cotton gin did.
 
2012-01-16 10:06:26 AM

DarnoKonrad: brerrabbit: Hell, considering the first tractors started coming out 20 years after the civil war, slavery would have likely died a natural death in the south in the 1890's or so.

Yes just like the cotton gin did.


The cotton gin solved a singlebig bottleneck in the process of making cotton usableand made growing cotton viable as a cash crop . It did the work of a lot of slaves. Those slaves were not around just to pick the seeds out of cotton though, they were used for most of the agricultural process of growing cotton.

Using a tractor with the right implements means that one person could do the work of several dozen slaves throughout the process. If the slaves were no longer needed for agriculture, the big push to continue keeping slaves would have disappeared and the south would have had no reason to ignore the moral arguments against slavery.
 
2012-01-16 10:30:53 AM
That's disingenuous. What each party stands for has changed in the past 150 years. The Republican Party of Lincoln is not the Republican Party of today. The Democratic Party of 150 years ago is not the same as the Democratic Party of today.

Teddy Roosevelt was both a progressive and a Republican.
 
2012-01-16 10:46:47 AM

WorldCitizen: I too sometimes think Lincoln should have just let the South go. Just think of how far the United States could have progressed by now without the South always dragging its heals on any level of progress, civil rights, and modernization.


At some point, the Confederacy would have invaded Mexico, the Union would have invaded Canada, and there would be a DMZ in between. It would be a seriously weird Western Hemisphere.

/I think there have been a few alt-hist books on this.
 
2012-01-16 11:00:49 AM

brerrabbit: DarnoKonrad: brerrabbit: Hell, considering the first tractors started coming out 20 years after the civil war, slavery would have likely died a natural death in the south in the 1890's or so.

Yes just like the cotton gin did.

The cotton gin solved a singlebig bottleneck in the process of making cotton usableand made growing cotton viable as a cash crop . It did the work of a lot of slaves. Those slaves were not around just to pick the seeds out of cotton though, they were used for most of the agricultural process of growing cotton.

Using a tractor with the right implements means that one person could do the work of several dozen slaves throughout the process. If the slaves were no longer needed for agriculture, the big push to continue keeping slaves would have disappeared and the south would have had no reason to ignore the moral arguments against slavery.



Assuming your logic is correct, and it just doesn't open the door for larger and more productive farms for the current slave population -- who's to say tractors would have even been invented if slavery hadn't been outlawed in the market? That may have very well been what precipitated their necessity.

Still, it's not like the tractor got rid of the share-cropper or tenet farmer -- who were slaves in everything but name.
 
2012-01-16 11:01:13 AM
The single most racist policy in the United States is the War on Drugs.

According to Ohio State University law professor and author Michelle Alexander, there are more African-American men in prison, on probation or on parole in the US now than there were enslaved in 1850. Alexander also calculates that because felons lose the right to vote, more African-American men were disenfranchised in 2004 than in 1870, the year male franchise was secured.

Only one candidate for President opposes the War on Drugs.

If the party shills were really concerned about the plight of black people, they would stop supporting the bipartisan War on Drugs. However, as usual, this is just another concern troll.

Remember when they opposed Endless Wars and shredding the Constitution?
 
2012-01-16 11:02:23 AM

DarnoKonrad: brerrabbit: Hell, considering the first tractors started coming out 20 years after the civil war, slavery would have likely died a natural death in the south in the 1890's or so.

Yes just like the cotton gin did.


Can't say the tractor would have ended it or not. But slavery ended in many parts of the world without the need for a major war to do it. Unless you're arguing that Southerners are uniquely evil among the peoples of the world, you have to concede that it would have died at SOME point without the need for a war. (This does not argue that it was acceptable to wait.)
 
2012-01-16 11:16:55 AM

vygramul: DarnoKonrad: brerrabbit: Hell, considering the first tractors started coming out 20 years after the civil war, slavery would have likely died a natural death in the south in the 1890's or so.

Yes just like the cotton gin did.

Can't say the tractor would have ended it or not. But slavery ended in many parts of the world without the need for a major war to do it. Unless you're arguing that Southerners are uniquely evil among the peoples of the world, you have to concede that it would have died at SOME point without the need for a war. (This does not argue that it was acceptable to wait.)



It wasn't the abolitionists who opened fire on Ft. Sumter.
 
2012-01-16 11:29:26 AM

DarnoKonrad: vygramul: DarnoKonrad: brerrabbit: Hell, considering the first tractors started coming out 20 years after the civil war, slavery would have likely died a natural death in the south in the 1890's or so.

Yes just like the cotton gin did.

Can't say the tractor would have ended it or not. But slavery ended in many parts of the world without the need for a major war to do it. Unless you're arguing that Southerners are uniquely evil among the peoples of the world, you have to concede that it would have died at SOME point without the need for a war. (This does not argue that it was acceptable to wait.)


It wasn't the abolitionists who opened fire on Ft. Sumter.


You're missing the point. Are you saying that they were uniquely evil and there would still be slavery TODAY in the South without the war? No? Then you are explicitly agreeing that it would have eventually gone away without the war.
 
2012-01-16 11:35:39 AM

brerrabbit: WorldCitizen: I too sometimes think Lincoln should have just let the South go. Just think of how far the United States could have progressed by now without the South always dragging its heals on any level of progress, civil rights, and modernization.

Hell, considering the first tractors started coming out 20 years after the civil war, slavery would have likely died a natural death in the south in the 1890's or so.


so explain share cropers

And if the plantation owners didn't need slaves because they were using tractors what then?
 
2012-01-16 11:44:50 AM

vygramul: You're missing the point. Are you saying that they were uniquely evil and there would still be slavery TODAY in the South without the war? No? Then you are explicitly agreeing that it would have eventually gone away without the war.


You're begging the question in more ways that one. "Evil" has really got nothing to do with it, but I'm not generally a fan of any argument that assumes contemporary people are more ethical than some other historical group of people. And if you want to make a statement of faith that slavery would have become economically nonviable, it's just that, a statement of faith. I can't "disprove" it.

So no, I'm not agreeing "it would have went away."
 
2012-01-16 12:01:48 PM

vygramul: DarnoKonrad: vygramul: DarnoKonrad: brerrabbit: Hell, considering the first tractors started coming out 20 years after the civil war, slavery would have likely died a natural death in the south in the 1890's or so.

Yes just like the cotton gin did.

Can't say the tractor would have ended it or not. But slavery ended in many parts of the world without the need for a major war to do it. Unless you're arguing that Southerners are uniquely evil among the peoples of the world, you have to concede that it would have died at SOME point without the need for a war. (This does not argue that it was acceptable to wait.)


It wasn't the abolitionists who opened fire on Ft. Sumter.

You're missing the point. Are you saying that they were uniquely evil and there would still be slavery TODAY in the South without the war? No? Then you are explicitly agreeing that it would have eventually gone away without the war.



I will say that slavery in the US was unique in that it was race based. Most other times and places slavery was the result of war with the losing side ending up slaves or debitors or criminals being made into slaves. The instution of slavery was founded on the inferiority of blacks in the US. We have already seen what happened to blacks in the south after the civil war, are you saying that if machines could replace slaves the slave owner would just say you know this dark skinned fellow my family has been holding in involutary servitude all these years should have all the same rights as my children.
 
2012-01-16 12:04:02 PM

Bauer: the civil war was over taxes, way more than it ever was about slavery.


Contrary to all the historical evidence indicating the opposite.
 
2012-01-16 12:16:15 PM

spongeboob: vygramul: DarnoKonrad: vygramul: DarnoKonrad: brerrabbit: Hell, considering the first tractors started coming out 20 years after the civil war, slavery would have likely died a natural death in the south in the 1890's or so.

Yes just like the cotton gin did.

Can't say the tractor would have ended it or not. But slavery ended in many parts of the world without the need for a major war to do it. Unless you're arguing that Southerners are uniquely evil among the peoples of the world, you have to concede that it would have died at SOME point without the need for a war. (This does not argue that it was acceptable to wait.)


It wasn't the abolitionists who opened fire on Ft. Sumter.

You're missing the point. Are you saying that they were uniquely evil and there would still be slavery TODAY in the South without the war? No? Then you are explicitly agreeing that it would have eventually gone away without the war.


I will say that slavery in the US was unique in that it was race based. Most other times and places slavery was the result of war with the losing side ending up slaves or debitors or criminals being made into slaves. The instution of slavery was founded on the inferiority of blacks in the US. We have already seen what happened to blacks in the south after the civil war, are you saying that if machines could replace slaves the slave owner would just say you know this dark skinned fellow my family has been holding in involutary servitude all these years should have all the same rights as my children.


Well, maybe in time it was unique (Africans had been enslaved by Middle Easterners long before in the Americas). Not in place. Have you read the history of the rest of the Western Hemisphere specifically the Caribbean and Brazil? The large majority of African slaves brought to the Americas did not end up in the territory of the modern US. Brazil took in more than the US by a significant number. Without a civil war slavery went away in Brazil in 1888. I would imagine not much later than that it would have gone away in the Confederacy (but probably been replaced with something like serfdom/sharecropping for a long time). It would be difficult to long sustain reasonable relations with the outside world as the last remaining slave nation when opinions of it in the rest of the Western World were so turning against it. Now, the civil rights movement was largely thrust on the South from the North/federal government, so I have very little doubt that the state of civil rights for blacks in the South would be much, much worse today in a Confederacy. The same folks today who think they should be able to vote on if gays should have equal rights would in the Confederacy I don't thing be voting for equal rights for blacks. So, if no US Supreme Court and federal troops had forced it them on them... I don't know; MAYBE they would have moved at about the same pace and in parallel with South Africa on civil rights. Well, except, I can't see them having same-sex marriage which South Africa already has over the US.
 
2012-01-16 12:18:51 PM

Bauer: the civil war was over taxes, way more than it ever was about slavery.


The Civil War, like most all wars, was ultimately about economics no matter what patriotic cause either side dresses the war up in to get the masses to fight and die for it. Slavery played a HUGE part in the economic element of the war. More so than taxes.
 
2012-01-16 01:29:14 PM

mrshowrules: Bauer: the civil war was over taxes, way more than it ever was about slavery.

Contrary to all the historical evidence indicating the opposite.


That's most likely a result of your misunderstanding of history.

Lincoln did not free the slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves only in those states that had joined the Confederacy. Slavery remained legal in every other slave state until the passage of the thirteenth amendment.
 
2012-01-16 01:43:42 PM

BullBearMS: mrshowrules: Bauer: the civil war was over taxes, way more than it ever was about slavery.

Contrary to all the historical evidence indicating the opposite.

That's most likely a result of your misunderstanding of history.

Lincoln did not free the slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves only in those states that had joined the Confederacy. Slavery remained legal in every other slave state until the passage of the thirteenth amendment.


And Lincoln strongly supported the 13th Amendment.
 
2012-01-16 01:43:58 PM
Paul would have kept slavery for the states had wanted it. That's just how he rolls.
 
2012-01-16 01:46:44 PM

BullBearMS: mrshowrules: Bauer: the civil war was over taxes, way more than it ever was about slavery.

Contrary to all the historical evidence indicating the opposite.

That's most likely a result of your misunderstanding of history.

Lincoln did not free the slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves only in those states that had joined the Confederacy. Slavery remained legal in every other slave state until the passage of the thirteenth amendment.


You can prattle on about the *North's* motivations all you want.

What was the *South's* motivation?

And why did the South secede?

If you want, I can dig up many of the articles of secession for you. Or the first president of the confederacy's speeches on the matter.
 
2012-01-16 01:47:51 PM

cameroncrazy1984: No, RON PAUL is more of a whore for his district given how much money he brings home while railing against earmarks.


Ron Paul said he supports earmarks and feels all of the funds should be earmarked. Not doing so cedes power from the congress to the executive.

So you're 100% wrong.
 
2012-01-16 01:48:17 PM
Paul is anti-war. That makes him very unpopular in the country that stands for war above all else.
 
2012-01-16 01:49:37 PM

Felgraf: BullBearMS: mrshowrules: Bauer: the civil war was over taxes, way more than it ever was about slavery.

Contrary to all the historical evidence indicating the opposite.

That's most likely a result of your misunderstanding of history.

Lincoln did not free the slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves only in those states that had joined the Confederacy. Slavery remained legal in every other slave state until the passage of the thirteenth amendment.

You can prattle on about the *North's* motivations all you want.

What was the *South's* motivation?

And why did the South secede?



Actually it failed.
 
2012-01-16 01:50:46 PM
i595.photobucket.com

6 foot four and looking for love.
A log in his pants and a stovepipe up above.

/Paul ain't got shiat on the Abenator.
 
2012-01-16 01:51:03 PM

BullBearMS: mrshowrules: Bauer: the civil war was over taxes, way more than it ever was about slavery.

Contrary to all the historical evidence indicating the opposite.

That's most likely a result of your misunderstanding of history.

Lincoln did not free the slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves only in those states that had joined the Confederacy. Slavery remained legal in every other slave state until the passage of the thirteenth amendment.


In all reality, the civil war was sparked over economic reasons and a basic conflict within the nation over the simple 'status' of the country at the time.

Was the United States a collection of independent states that had the right to leave that Union at a time of their choosing?

Or was the United States a single nation with disparate but indivisible parts?

The South believed they had the right to leave in order to maintain slavery, and the inherent economic benefits derived from slavery, and the North believed that they had the right to keep the Southern states within the Union and enforce their view of a single centralized Federal government.

It's an argument that was born at the time of the Founding Fathers that they evaded and kicked down the road, along with slavery.

The opposition to slavery on moral grounds was incidental to the matter. Lincoln's personal letters point out that had the survival of the Union depended on the slaves remaining in bondage, he would choose that path. To Lincoln, the nation itself came before anything and everything else.
 
2012-01-16 01:51:44 PM
Ron Paul is a radical tenther. Which means that he's a staunch opponent of federal tyranny but is ambivalent, at best, on state tyranny.

I'm glad that Paul's against useless wars and Fed corruption but his "solutions" are invariably in response to mythical problems.
 
2012-01-16 01:52:33 PM
The Civil War was about slavery like Iraq was about WMD's.
 
2012-01-16 01:53:33 PM

Infernalist: In all reality, the civil war was sparked over economic reasons


Every reason to leave can be traced back to slavery. They were worried about misrepresentation...because they had so many slaves that their population count was much lower due to the 3/5ths compromise. They were worried about economic imbalance...because they relied on slave labor so heavily. They believed that states should be able to self-determine their laws on slavery...unless that self-determination was against slavery.
 
2012-01-16 01:54:36 PM

Amos Quito: The Civil War was about slavery like Iraq was about WMD's.


So you're saying that the South really didn't have slavery?
 
2012-01-16 01:55:14 PM
Sure you can. The whole Republican party's done a 180 since Lincoln. The Republicans and Democrats switched 80 years ago.
 
2012-01-16 01:55:51 PM

Amos Quito: The Civil War was about slavery like Iraq was about WMD's.


Tell that to the South Carolina Secession Convention. (new window)
 
2012-01-16 01:56:16 PM
The south seceded to protect their right to maintain slavery, but the north did not invade to end slavery, but to assert basic control - federal over state.
 
2012-01-16 01:56:43 PM
Like most wars, both sides thought they were fighting the good fight, and both sides had a point. The federal government headed by Lincoln was not the federal government envisioned by the Founders. He suspended habeas corpus, FFS.

You can argue that federalism had to change with the times, or that such a massive expansion of federal power was worth ending slavery, which was being phased out at the time, anyway. Just don't argue that one side was completely holy and perfect, while the other was completely evil and wrong. That's willful ignorance.
 
2012-01-16 01:57:37 PM

TofuTheAlmighty: Ron Paul is a radical tenther. Which means that he's a staunch opponent of federal tyranny but is ambivalent, at best, on state tyranny.

I'm glad that Paul's against useless wars and Fed corruption but his "solutions" are invariably in response to mythical problems.


Paul's only against Federal Wars. He has no problem if Arizona wants to declare war on Mexico, California, or Drugs.
 
2012-01-16 01:57:38 PM

Amos Quito: The Civil War was about slavery like Iraq was about WMD's.


Every facet of motivation for the civil war was rooted in slavery. See Sprawls Post before yours:

They were worried about misrepresentation...because they had so many slaves that their population count was much lower due to the 3/5ths compromise. They were worried about economic imbalance...because they relied on slave labor so heavily. They believed that states should be able to self-determine their laws on slavery...unless that self-determination was against slavery.

The Civil War was about slavery like the Napoleonic Wars were about countering Napoleon/France.
 
2012-01-16 01:57:50 PM

vygramul: You're missing the point. Are you saying that they were uniquely evil and there would still be slavery TODAY in the South without the war?


Not uniquely. Slavery in Haiti ended only when the slaves rebelled and started a war with the French. You're trying to get people to admit that they can't prove that slavery would have remained without the civil war. Guess what, you can't prove that it would have gone away.
 
2012-01-16 01:57:51 PM

Fart_Machine: Amos Quito: The Civil War was about slavery like Iraq was about WMD's.

So you're saying that the South really didn't have slavery?



Touché!
 
2012-01-16 01:58:40 PM

BullBearMS: mrshowrules: Bauer: the civil war was over taxes, way more than it ever was about slavery.

Contrary to all the historical evidence indicating the opposite.

That's most likely a result of your misunderstanding of history.

Lincoln did not free the slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves only in those states that had joined the Confederacy. Slavery remained legal in every other slave state until the passage of the thirteenth amendment.


Are there any other unobscure tidbits of civil war history you'd like to bring up to make you feel better about the actions of a bunch of treasonous slavers?
 
2012-01-16 01:58:43 PM

Amos Quito: The Civil War was about slavery like Iraq was about WMD's.


zs1.smbc-comics.com
 
2012-01-16 01:59:05 PM

Infernalist: In all reality, the civil war was sparked over economic reasons and a basic conflict within the nation over the simple 'status' of the country at the time.


And slavery was a huge part of the economics. How could it not be with that massive labor pool? You could even be incredibly racist and anti-slavery using an economic argument. "Dey took our jerbs!"
 
Displayed 50 of 249 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report