Monday, December 31, 2007

Ron Paul: Bridging the Gap to 19th Century Treason

I decided to spend a little time today hopefully coming up in the blogrolls of hundreds of Paultards. It seems that a little attention should indeed be paid to their savior-in-chief, Sir Congressman Ron Paul of Texas (also referred to by Paultards as: Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Patrick Henry, Jesus, George Washington, Han Solo, Benjamin Franklin, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Adam Smith, and Gandalf).

It seems that he had some choice words on Meet The Press for America's greatest president, Abraham Lincoln.

MR. RUSSERT: I was intrigued by your comments about Abe Lincoln. "According to Paul, Abe Lincoln should never have gone to war; there were better ways of getting rid of slavery."

REP. PAUL: Absolutely. Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war. No, he shouldn’t have gone, gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic. I mean, it was the–that iron, iron fist.

MR. RUSSERT: We’d still have slavery.

REP. PAUL: Oh, come on, Tim. Slavery was phased out in every other country of the world. And the way I’m advising that it should have been done is do like the British empire did. You, you buy the slaves and release them.


Never mind the fact that most of the civilized world thought America's notion of 19th century freedom was a joke while it still held men, women, and children in slavery.

Never mind the fact that insinuating that Abraham Lincoln was a power-hungry dictator is unbelievably prolific in the rhetoric of disenchanted white supremacist confederates.

And never mind the fact that there wasn't a snowball's chance in hell that the grandchildren of the same men who fought for slavery and (later) against integration would 'phase out' slavery. It had to be taken from them - plain and simple. Abraham Lincoln understood that, Lyndon B. Johnson understood that, but not surprisingly, Ron Paul doesn't measure up.

No my friends, Ron Paul isn't just a moronic, pie-in-the-sky, head-up-the-ass, libertarian and presidential candidate for the socially malformed, he also hates Abraham Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation. Oh...and the 1964 Civil Rights act too:

MR. RUSSERT: You would vote against the Civil Rights Act if, if it was today?

REP. PAUL: If it were written the same way, where the federal government’s taken over property–has nothing to do with race relations [...]

it has to do with the Constitution and private property rights


So my lovely Paultards, I hate to break it to you. But your candidate is not only assbackwards, but he is way out of the American mainstream and conscience. I shall be laughing heartily at your antics when he gets 8% in Iowa, 5% in New Hampshire, and 5% in every other state. I only pray that he mounts an independent bid so the chuckles can continue.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

Try some research, or shall I do it for you?

http://www.etherzone.com/2007/tuma122807.shtml

BruinKid said...

Yes, some research. Indeed. Here's a Ron Paul gem from 1992:

Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action.... 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.

If similar in-depth studies were conducted in other major cities, who doubts that similar results would be produced? We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.


Lemme guess, anonymous. You're gonna say that Ron Paul had nothing to do with the Ron Paul Political Report, even though he's never actually disavowed the thing.

Kyle said...

Wow, shocker there Mr. Anonymous. Who would've guessed that a mid 19th-century president would have held views that we consider racist today! Shocker!

The first thing historians are taught is to not judge past individuals using present morality and values. If Lincoln, or any other American for that matter, had said that all people of color are equal beyond the law, that interracial marriage is alright, that integration is great, etc etc - it would have been a bigger shock than a gray-skinned alien coming down singing Liberace.

What makes Lincoln a great president is that in his historical position in the 19th century, he did have progressive views on race. And not only did he hold progressive views, but he put them to use - issuing the Emancipation Proclamation and bringing the South's slavery problem to heel.

Perhaps it comes as a shock to you that nearly all scholars, African Americans included, consider Lincoln to be the best president we've ever had.

Anonymous said...

Should we credit Paul for the opinion poll he references?

What's your understanding of the word "criminal?" Has not the war on drugs been the means by which blacks are criminalized for capitalizing on the effects of prohibition.

Should we credit Paul for statistics that state that blacks have high crime stats?

If I were to GUESS I would say that you like the idea that Ron Paul is being called a rascist.

Actually the fact that you find the statements "rascist" in the first place says a lot about you.

Anonymous said...

Kyle,

I have no problem with everyone calling him the best president we ever had, not that that's a judgement call, or anything like that, but my question to you would be, why does rascism seem to be a bigger problem in the US than in the other industrialized nations?

Kyle said...

I'll let Bruinkid go after you on the substance - but I'll just make one fairly simple point.

I'm not sure someone who claims Ron Paul is not racist, while misspelling the word (rascist), necessarily gives off a good impression that they know what in God's name they're talking about.

BruinKid said...

Should we credit Paul for statistics that state that blacks have high crime stats?

No, Paul didn't make those up. But what he did pull out of his ass was that line about 95% of all black males being "semi-criminal or entirely criminal". That should be properly credited to Paul.

This is why people like white supremacist website Stormfront founder Don Black are Ron Paul supporters.

Anonymous said...

You seem to have missed the point he's making about criminality. The laws we write create the criminals. He's impugning the criminal justice system, not blacks.

Who cares why Don Black supports him? Why give Don Black the time of day?

Kyle,
I'm not concerned about the impression I give by a typo. Use it to judge my worthiness if you will, it's your prerogative.

Anonymous said...

Correction, it was a misspelling, not a typo. Thank you Kyle, I will watch for it in the future.

Kyle said...

why does rascism seem to be a bigger problem in the US than in the other industrialized nations?


Well let me ask you this, have you ever watched a European soccer game? I find that a society's views on race come across quite clearly in the social arena of sports. In any event, soccer, alternatively known to our friends across the Atlantic as football, is a hotbed of racism. If you ever watch, you'd be astonished to see the lovely choice racial slurs members of industrialized European countries hurl at black soccer players. Alternatively, you could also ask many Muslims and middle eastern immigrants living in Europe how they're feeling about the lack of a racial problem there.

No one here is arguing that race isn't still a huge problem in America - but what we are pointing out is that Ron Paul pulled a completely bullshit quote out of his ass (95% of blacks are criminals). This quote does absolutely nothing but serve to perpetuate stereotypes and exacerbate a problem.

It is highly suspect that Ron Paul not only bashes the Great Emancipator, not only is supported by a myriad of white supremacists, but is also completely ok with making disparaging and racist comments about people of color. Sort of the Unholy Trinity, wouldn't you say? Though I suppose his white supremacist supporters wouldn't like Catholics either...

Correction, it was a misspelling, not a typo. Thank you Kyle, I will watch for it in the future.


You're welcome, and thank you Mr. Anonymous!