Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Things to Be Thankful For
When you go around the Thanksgiving table tomorrow and say what you are thankful for, keep in mind the informational poster above, courtesy of the ever-resourceful James Lileks. I know I'm thankful not to be "helpless beneath the boots of the Asiatic Russians," as the caption warns me might occur. And I'm sure that most (though not all) American men are grateful they weren't sterilized by the Reds.
Big Nanny|11.21.07 @ 3:49PM|#
I don't know why, but for some reason the mindless, crippling fear seems somehow familiar.
Episiarch|11.21.07 @ 3:50PM|#
This is exacly what the IllegalMexicans and the MexicanGovernment want too. One ForeignThreat after another!
Peter|11.21.07 @ 4:02PM|#
I don't know why, and I'm not saying that Islamic terrorism is to be taken lightly (I lived 6 blocks from the towers when they fell). But it just does not incite the same level of pure hatred in me as does a galvanized communist threat.
|11.21.07 @ 4:05PM|#
I hadda pay good money to get sterilized. I for one would have welcomed our would-be vasectomizing masters.
shecky|11.21.07 @ 4:06PM|#
Yeah, Islamism isn't the threat it's made out to be. Hell,
communism wasn't the threat it was made out to be.
But maybe I'm in the minority here. I like being sterilized!
|11.21.07 @ 4:11PM|#
On the other hand, if the Soviets had won, we would have gotten to see busty, half-naked chicks with serious perms being stomped on by giant boots, and that's something that, I'm sure, ALL American men would be grateful for.
First Little Pig|11.21.07 @ 4:12PM|#
Methinks the implication was more "castrated" than "given a vasectomy" when the poster was produced. So some of you might want to rethink your acceptance.
Franklin Harris|11.21.07 @ 4:15PM|#
So, the Russians wanted to rape our women and castrate us guys? Did they get this idea from watching "I Spit on Your Grave" too many times?
Episiarch|11.21.07 @ 4:19PM|#
Did they get this idea from watching "I Spit on Your Grave"
too many times?
Franklin, I don't think you got the point of I Spit on Your
Grave. Though I appreciate the desire to reference it.
Franklin Harris|11.21.07 @ 4:22PM|#
Franklin, I don't think you got the point of I Spit on Your Grave. Though I appreciate the desire to reference it.
I'm bored. Referencing it was my point.
|11.21.07 @ 4:26PM|#
I'm thankful that, outside of the drug war, the government isn't producing posters this bad any more.
DannyK|11.21.07 @ 4:28PM|#
These boots were made for Russians/
And that's just what they'll do/
One of these days these boots are gonna invade North America and
sterilize all the dudes.
Thanks, I'll be here all week.
|11.21.07 @ 4:29PM|#
shecky:
Yeah, Islamism isn't the threat it's made out to be. Hell,
communism wasn't the threat it was made out to be.
I think that without our government's provoking, Islamism wouldn't
even be a threat at all. But communism was a mass murder
machine.
|11.21.07 @ 4:50PM|#
They just want our big-breasted women.
I wouldn't hold that against them.
Wow, what a great audience.
|11.21.07 @ 4:58PM|#
Doesn't she look a tad inappropriately sanguine? Perhaps she's extrapolating from the size of the foot…
Franklin Harris|11.21.07 @ 5:04PM|#
Is it just me, or were women hotter in the '50s?
It's just that models and actresses still had curves back then.
They hadn't invented eating disorders yet.
Elemenope|11.21.07 @ 5:17PM|#
Rick + Shecky:
The downtrodden and/or marginalized are rarely a threat to any
nation, as they can muster only spasmodic bursts of violence.
Obviously 'Islamists' (in the Osama bin Laden sense) are no
existential threat to America; The mere thought is idiocy.
On the other hand, Islam, when married to government, has been a
grave threat to its neighbors. Ditto Christianity. Ditto Communism.
Ditto Fascism. Ditto pretty much anything else you wish to
name.
Me, I have great faith in the originality and flexible perversity
of human thought; I imagine even Libertarian ideology could be
perverted into a mass murder machine. If that seems nonsensical,
it's only as nonsensical a thought as reading the New Testament and
then guessing that Christianity would become an empire endorsed
murder machine.
What was that quote, about the abyss, and monsters...?
|11.21.07 @ 5:39PM|#
DannyK,
I blew snot on my monitor here at work, and I'm still laughing like
an idiot.
Please refrain from such hilarity. :-)
|11.21.07 @ 5:45PM|#
"If you want to imagine the future, imagine a boot stomping on a hot chick. FOREVER."
Elemenope|11.21.07 @ 5:57PM|#
mediageek -
I just barely avoided spewing cherry coke all over my compy. Jerk.
;)
|11.21.07 @ 6:05PM|#
Ah, commie bashing. One of those simple pleasures that never
gets old.
I still enjoy watching this old "ism" cartoon.
Edward|11.21.07 @ 6:25PM|#
I'm thankful my brain hasn't been so eroded by libertarian slogans that I think Ron Paul has a gnat's ass chance of winning anything. Well, maybe Stormfront poster boy.
|11.21.07 @ 6:55PM|#
Edward
Isn't it time for your daily "This is my final post, I'm going away
and never posting again" post?
Elemenope|11.21.07 @ 7:04PM|#
re: Edward's crusade against Ron Paul that knows no bounds of
holiday or facts...
The Nation's online front-page article today is all but an
endorsement of Ron Paul and a simultaneous shaming of the
Democratic front-runners. That, coming from a bona fide left-wing
rag...
|11.21.07 @ 7:22PM|#
I'm egarly awaiting the blog post that will allows to engage in our annual Buy Nothing Day bashing.
M|11.21.07 @ 7:34PM|#
I think all this hysteria about sterilizing American men is just a marketing ploy. Soap and water has worked just fine for me.
American Woman|11.21.07 @ 7:51PM|#
"Doesn't she look a tad inappropriately sanguine? Perhaps she's
extrapolating from the size of the foot…"
Well I don't know about her, but I find the Asiatic Russians to be
really hawt.
Kolohe|11.21.07 @ 9:06PM|#
Never mind the godless communists & hot 50's chicks! I'm
more worried about the here and now; about what unspeakable things
the godless RationalResponder chick is doing to the
ConservativeTShirt girls now that she's kicked them out of the ad
space.
*thinks a second about unspeakable things*
I'll be in my bunk.
|11.21.07 @ 9:45PM|#
If you haven't clicked on the link in the article and scrolled throught the pages, you're missing some hilarious stuff.
|11.21.07 @ 10:43PM|#
Jacob:
Is it just me, or were women hotter in the '50s?
I think that female allure hit its zenith in the 80's. An exquisite
example...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40K2S0-5Xo0
|11.21.07 @ 11:01PM|#
I like reading Lileks but I have to say it's ironic to see him presenting this as a joke when he takes such fears seriously when it involves the Asiatic "islamofascist" hordes.
|11.22.07 @ 12:52AM|#
Elemenope,
Very interesting-If a libertarian ideology could be perverted into
a mass murder machine, I'm thinking that that perversion would have
to include the libertarian ideology being shorn of its essence. But
I would have never guessed that after the fall of the Soviet
empire, our government would have launched a needless war. But then
I didn't envision the neocon's designs on the Mideast being so
influential on foreign policy.
The quote is:
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby
become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss
gazes also into you. "
Friedrich Nietzsche "Beyond Good and Evil" (Aphorism 146)
I was unfamiliar. Thanks! The first sentence rings with truth. How
do we interpret the second sentence?
|11.22.07 @ 1:02AM|#
Elemenope:
I just barely avoided spewing cherry coke all over my
compy.
Me too, mediageek! It was grape juice, but me too.
Elemenope|11.22.07 @ 1:53AM|#
Rick Barton-
I agree--perversion is the essence of turning any ideology
inhumane, particularly one, like Libertarianism or
Christianity, that claims to value the worth of humans as
individuals.
If I may be bold, the disjunction becomes easier when the ideology
becomes more important than its practical effects as it is
implemented. Theory is all nice and smooth, with rounded corners
and neat folds, very much unlike anything that comes into contact
with the human condition; any attempt to 'smooth' the human edges
to fit the theory ultimately becomes inhuman.
Nietzsche (I spent a long time studying him) was quite an enigmatic
character, and he had an infuriatingly elusive (coy, I'd say)
style. The famous 'monsters' quote is only a very small taste.
Often, the point he's trying to make is that ultimate valuations
(the ones of ideology, especially religion) tend to drag
actual humans into nihilism about human worth, the actual act of
living, etc.. In that, he was very closely related to Emerson and
Thoreau (American philosophers he very much admired) in the
Pragmatic tradition that eventually fed into a large part of
American Libertarianism.
Two favorite quotes of his:
State is the name of the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly
it tells lies too; this lie crawls from its mouth: "I, the State,
am the People." (Zarathustra, On the New Idol)
Liberal institutions cease to be liberal as soon as they are
attained: later on, there are no worse and no more thorough
injurers of freedom than liberal institutions...These same
institutions produce quite different effects while they are still
being fought for; then they really promote freedom in a powerful
way...the free man is a warrior. (Twilight of the Idols, My
Conception of Freedom)
Edward|11.22.07 @ 1:58AM|#
This may be the most elevated exchange I have witnessed on H&R. What happened to the Ron Paul slogans?
Elemenope|11.22.07 @ 3:05AM|#
Here, Edward:
Whoever thinks much is not suitable as a party member: he soon
thinks himself right through the party.
Ron Paul/Nietzsche's Animatronic Talking Corpse '08!
|11.22.07 @ 3:20AM|#
Edward's crusade against Ron Paul that knows no
bounds of holiday or facts...
I've come to the conclusion that Edward's continued bizarre Ron
Paul-Nazi/racist contentions are just one more example of his
getting attention by attacking libertarians in this manner. Note
that on another libertarian site, he wrote:
Hey Urkobolds, how about keeping your schtick confined to your
own unfunny, racist [!?] website...
(Bold mine)
http://urkobold.blogspot.com/2007/11/new-wave-saturday_17.html
Edward, if you can do better than your tortured playing of the
Nazi/racist card, it's like bitchen overtime to do so.
|11.22.07 @ 4:01AM|#
Elemenope:
In that, he was very closely related to Emerson and Thoreau
(American philosophers he very much admired) in the Pragmatic
tradition that eventually fed into a large part of American
Libertarianism.
"Pragmatic tradition"-Yet we're accused of not being
practical!
Two favorite quotes of his:
The first is so true, like the "monsters" quote. I'm still working
on the second one. And I'll ask this, even in front of Edward; is
it true that some of the Nazis dug Nietzsche? And if so, perhaps it
was cuz they liked how he attacked liberal institutions but they
ignored his libertarian sentiments?
BTW, did you have a philosophy education?
M|11.22.07 @ 8:27AM|#
The abyss gazing into you will find an abyss (perhaps more patent in some than in others).
Elemenope|11.22.07 @ 11:25AM|#
Rick Barton - (really quickly, it's turkey day!)
re:Pragmatism....well some of us are and some of us aren't. In
talking to Libertarians I have been as, let's say 'unimpressed'
with their journey towards orthodoxy, as I was in the similar
tendencies of the progressive people and orgs. I grew up with. It
seems regardless of ideology, some people just can't bring
themselves to care about the actual human consequences of whatever
it is they wish to implement.
Yes, I studied philosophy in college.
Most of the association of Nietzsche with Nazism in particular and
anti-Semitism in general was due to the influence of his sister,
Elizabeth Forster, who after his death re-edited a lot of his works
"creatively" to make it seem he was a proto-fascist and antisemite.
If you actually read his works, you realize just how much she would
have to rip apart and paste together to even create an illusion of
such (he writes pretty furiously against anti-Semitism in
particular as a cultural poison that exposes intellectual
inferiority, which he believed was overtaking the German people at
the end of the 19th century).
Nothing in fact could be further from the truth. Nietzsche broke
contact both with his sister (because she married a rabid
anti-semite and he was afraid his works would be tarred by
association) and with Wagner (although that also had other
reasons). During the Nazi years, Heidegger "reinterpreted"
Nietzsche to support Nazi ideology by quoting out of context.
Ironically, Nietzsche spent a great deal of his later writings
making really nasty fun of German nationalism (see: Twilight of the
Idols, 'What the Germans Lack').
Edward|11.22.07 @ 12:09PM|#
Re Ron Paul: Except for his sensible position on the war, his
positions extreme and far out of the mainstream. Anybody with any
understanding of American politics knows that Ron Paul has no
chance whatever of winning the Republican nomination.
Ron Paul's contention that the Constitution and Declaration of
Independence are "replete with references to God" calls into
serious question either his knowledge of these documnets or his
honesty. His stated belief that the Founding Fathers "envisioned a
robust Christian nation" should raise an alarm for secularists of
all political persuasions. Such pronouncements may explain some of
his appeal to the racist, anti-Semitic right of the Christian
identity sort. His apparent unwillingness to distance hiself from
these extremist elements should certainly be disturbing to anybody
who thinks he has a chance of winning. Since I don't, I just think
is disgusting.
LarryA|11.22.07 @ 12:54PM|#
Re Ron Paul: Except for his sensible position on the war,
his positions extreme and far out of the mainstream.
Given today's "mainstream," that's a feature, not a problem.
Ron Paul's contention that the Constitution and Declaration of
Independence are "replete with references to God" calls into
serious question either his knowledge of these documents or his
honesty.
Declaration of Independence:
... to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God...
... they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights...
... appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude
of our intentions...
... with a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine
Providence...
The Constitution not so much, but the two references to religion
are critical:
... but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification
to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
His stated belief that the Founding Fathers "envisioned a
robust Christian nation" should raise an alarm for secularists of
all political persuasions.
Read the Founding Fathers' works. They envisioned a limited
government "deriving (its) just powers from the consent of the
governed." Such a government can only work if the governed are a
moral people holding to personal standards of behavior, one of
which standards is Christianity. If a majority of the people in a
nation are Christians, it can be a "Christian nation" without
having an overtly Christian government. In fact, it can be truly
Christian only with a completely secular government.
Jesus: the first libertarian.
Neu Mejican|11.22.07 @ 1:11PM|#
Elemenope,
It seems regardless of ideology, some people just can't bring
themselves to care about the actual human consequences of whatever
it is they wish to implement.
I think libertarians who base their preference on a "first
principles/rationalist (c.f., objectivists)" view of
libertarianism, in particular, are more likely to be blinded in
this sense. Libertarians who are more "consequentialists" seem, to
me, to be more moderate and pragmatic in their views.
Libertarianism is a strange beast in this sense. It attempts to be
a moderate anarchism. The principles it is founded upon argue for
an extreme interpretation, but it recognizes that the slippery
slope towards anarchism is unworkable, and attempts to temper it
with a "minimal" "only within this realm" approach to governance.
By doing this, however, it, to a degree, undermines the principles
that serve as its foundation.
I recognize this is a sloppy attempt to articulate my point, but I
think the dangerous libertarians are more likely to slip away from
libertarianism towards anarchy.
Re: communism in this context. The shared roots of communism and
libertarianism highlight the danger in my mind of people who
attempt to govern from "first principles."
Neu Mejican|11.22.07 @ 1:26PM|#
LarryA,
An essay on the libertarian message of Jesus.
http://www.strike-the-root.com/71/allport/allport11.html
SIV|11.22.07 @ 2:55PM|#
I think the dangerous libertarians are more likely to slip
away from libertarianism towards anarchy.
Count me in!
Edward|11.22.07 @ 3:18PM|#
It's a hard to imagine how a libertarian could buy into the collectivist thinking involved in religion: people of God, saved and damned, followers of Christ, chosen people, and all that bunk. It's the abandonmment of reason involved in religious thinking that made the Founding Fathers so hostile to it (their writings really are replete with this hostility). Robust Christian nation my ass; Ron Paul talks out of his. I trust him and his Christian identity pals about as far as I can throw them.
Edward|11.22.07 @ 3:36PM|#
The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no
basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our
Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders' political views
were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the
drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution,
both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal
government's hostility to religion.-- Ron Paul "The War on
religion"
"It is from the Bible that man has learned cruelty, rapine, and
murder; for the belief of a cruel God makes a cruel man." --Thomas
Paine "An Answer To A Friend Regarding The Age Of Reason," The
Prospect, 12 April 1804
Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the
introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and
imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards
uniformity.--Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
Elemenope|11.22.07 @ 4:20PM|#
Edward -
Religious thinking is not strictly collectivist, although
organized churches, etc. would certainly like to emphasize
that notion. Often it ends up being in service to collectivism
because it is a great toolbox for demagogues and grifters; in this
way it is just as easily used as race or other surface
difference.
As I think others have pointed out about Jesus, and can also be
said quite strongly of the Buddha, the actual prophets of many
religions were anti-Collectivist in thought and often in
action.
As far as it goes, Ron Paul is right in that the Separation of
Church and State does not directly or easily spring from the text
of the Constitution, and the founding fathers were at best divided
about how religion should play in the public square. I personally
think that the Separation is a generally good policy, and find it
unfortunate that Ron Paul thinks otherwise, but it is not a
deal-breaker--particularly because he urges restraint in actually
taking ideology and legislating it into being.
It's more of a deal-breaker with someone like Huckabee, who takes
basically liberal positions (we should use the government to make
people thin/save the environment/help the poor/etc.), slaps a
"because God wants us to do it" on top and calls it conservative.
That's creepy. I believe that Ron Paul doesn't want to shrink
government "because God told him to do it", and that's the prime
distinction. His ideas are not justified on the basis of his
religious beliefs alone, nor does he expect others to accept ideas
because they are religiously derived.
Edward|11.22.07 @ 4:30PM|#
Elemenope
I think the deal breaker is the obvious medacity or ignorance Ron
Paul displays in his characrterizations America's foundation
documents and views of the Founding Fathers. I don't trust
ignoramuses or those who balatantly lie for ideological reasons.
How do we know when he's telling the truth?
Gotta go see to the turkey.
The Wine Commonsewer|11.22.07 @ 7:35PM|#
I looked this up.......
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, except in government
schools.........
Guy Montag|11.22.07 @ 7:56PM|#
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, except in
government schools and anyplace within sight of a
Leftist.
You left a bit out ;)
Elemenope|11.22.07 @ 8:17PM|#
It has never, so far as I know, been illegal in any jurisdiction
in the United States for a student to freely practice their
religion in public schools, under the general restriction that like
all other behaviors, such observances cannot interrupt class. Feel
free to correct me if such a law has been passed and survived
challenge in a court.
Occasionally, school officials have punished students for organized
prayer; these officials act in violation of both the law and school
policies when they do this. Of course, these officials also
occasionally punish students for legal and within-policy things all
the time, such as protesting a war, eating a peanut butter
sandwich, offering an unflattering opinion of a teacher, or looking
sideways at them. School administrators mad with power is not the
same thing as a 'giant leftist conspiracy'. In high school I had a
health teacher who gave out bible tracts for his class to read, and
when another student complained the student was told to stuff it.
He was out of line (captive audience proselytization is a no-no, I
think we can perhaps agree), but I don't believe there is a 'giant
Christian conspiracy' because of it.
This whole "religious folk are persecuted in Amerika" thing is
literally absurd. Is this not the same country that says they'd
rather elect a alcoholic president than an Atheist?
Guy Montag|11.22.07 @ 8:27PM|#
Elemenope,
It has never, so far as I know, been illegal in any
jurisdiction in the United States for a student to freely practice
their religion in public schools, under the general restriction
that like all other behaviors, such observances cannot interrupt
class. Feel free to correct me if such a law has been passed and
survived challenge in a court.
I was not, and I doubt TWC was saying, that this has reached
success, yet. The shear amount of attempts by the
anti-Jewish/Christion ranks can not be ignored.
Back to the basics, I hope I am quoting this right, "As long as
there are math tests there will be prayer in public schools" -
George F. Will
|11.23.07 @ 10:08AM|#
informational poster above
BZZZT!
Nope, it wasn't a poster, it was from an "article" in 1953's
"Man
to Man." I guess calling it poster, despite knowing that it
wasn't, makes it sound like the image had more social significance
than an illustration for some soft-core porn.
Fluffy|11.23.07 @ 10:20AM|#
It has never, so far as I know, been illegal in any
jurisdiction in the United States for a student to freely practice
their religion in public schools, under the general restriction
that like all other behaviors, such observances cannot interrupt
class. Feel free to correct me if such a law has been passed and
survived challenge in a court.
Actually, there have been numerous legal battles over issues like
high school football players kneeling in prayer before a game, or
religious students handing out candy at lunch with religious
messages attached to the wrapper.
Religious speech is suppressed in schools all the time in contexts
that have nothing to do with class disruption.
protesting a war, eating a peanut butter sandwich, offering an
unflattering opinion of a teacher
They shouldn't be able to issue punishments for these activities
either.
This is one of the fundamental problems with public education to
me. Maintaining order in a school and promoting one particular
education vision requires arbitrary authority in a host of
different ways. Private institutions can wield such arbitrary
authority at will. A public institution, however, is able to do so
only because we all agree to pretend that students aren't citizens
and that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to them. The courts
generally do this on the basis of reasoning that the educational
mission of the school is a compelling state interest that
supercedes the Bill of Rights and allows for "time, place and
manner" restrictions as well as outright violations of various
enumerated rights. To me, this is crap. The enumerated rights were
enumerated precisely to make clear that they were not and could not
be superceded by the language granting the state its powers. If
that makes it impossible to run public schools, too damn bad.
|11.23.07 @ 11:27AM|#
In fairness, the rape thing does at least have some historical justification--the Red Army's rape of German women in 1945. (It seems that the only words of German the Rusian soldiers knew were "Frau komm"...)
|11.23.07 @ 11:43AM|#
I guess it's time for a genuine atheist to chime in on the
religion in public schools discussion.
1) They will NEVER banish prayer from the public
schools. Pop quiz, anyone?
2) Society's mores/values, being overwhelmingly, and incorrectly,
Christian are inevitably going to bleed over into non-demoniational
public schools.
3) We non-christians espescially atheists need to get over the fact
that public schools do not exist in a vacuum.
4) Any attempt to prosthelatize the students by faculty
MUST be dealt with quickly and firmly. Multiple
offenses of commingling religion with scholastics are properly
grounds for dismissal. A little comnmon sense could go a long way
here. If Ms Jones says God bless to a student who sneezes, get over
it. If Ms Jones says that creationist theory is an intellecctually
valid alternative to evolution, she should be terminated.
5) To rational theists and atheists alike, relax. The First
Amendment is not going anywhere. There is no "War against
Religion". If you want your religious viewpoint presented in class,
private and home schooling are viable options. Don't ask me to pay
for it though, or I'll be demanding equal time to teach
freethinking. You don't want that, do youy? Even in "Christian"
schools, students will talk about heretical ideas to each other
from time to time. This is a good thing. It means they are thinking
proto-adults, not sheep and parrots.
In summary, religion isn't going anywhere, anytime soon. Atheists,
accept that fact. Theists, don't sweat the small stuff.
|11.23.07 @ 11:48AM|#
BTW, I hope eveybody's Thanksgiving went swimmingly. The parade here in Motown went off wonderfully in spite of the cold weather with threats of rain. It's a fun thing to donate time to.
Edward|11.23.07 @ 2:28PM|#
http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/11/06/paul/view/index26.html
In 1996, Paul was one of only two candidates endorsed by Christian
Identity leader Larry Pratt (who had previously worked with David
Duke, and resigned from Pat Buchanan's team when his Identity role
became public). Paul refused to repudiate the endorsement; and
Pratt has stepped forward again with a quasi-endorsement of Paul's
current campaign.
Through the 90s, Paul was also a regular on the far-right talk
circuit. He spoke to Texas secessionists in 1995 on the "once and
future Republic of Texas"; has appeared on a radio program
affiliated with the Council of Conservative Citizens; and is a
frequent speaker at John Birch Society functions -- the group has
given him a perfect 100 in its legislative rankings. These days,
those who monitor CCC, David Duke, and Stormfront say they can't
get enough of him. They know he's one of their own.
Mad Max|11.23.07 @ 7:09PM|#
Edward,
Quick, who said th following:
"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have
removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the
people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are
not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my
country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot
sleep for ever: that considering numbers, nature and natural means
only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of
situation, is among possible events: that it may become probable by
supernatural interference! The Almighty has no attribute which can
take side with us in such a contest."
Wow - who is this fundamentalist threatening the wrath of God on
account of slavery, and predicting "supernatural interference"? Who
do you think it was who said that, Ed? Pat Robertson, perhaps?
Jerry Falwell?
People who aren't Edward will already have recognized the source of
the quote: Thomas Jefferson, in his Notes on the State of Virginia
(referring to slavery):
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/jevifram.htm
And Jefferson, mind you, was among the most theologically liberal
of the Founders. Not all the founders rejected the Bible and
traditional Christian theology, as you lyingly pretend.
Your quotations from outdated eighteenth-century attacks on
religion certainly show your sophistication and intelligence.
Tom Paine (a deist, not an atheist) had to spend time in prison
under the rational, anti-clerical regime of Robespierre in France.
Paine almost got his head cut off by those devotees of reason. In
the modern era, we have seen murderous anti-Christian and
post-Christian regimes which shed rivers of blood. For instance,
there are the Communists-who-just-happened-to-be-atheists. The
crimes of these anti-Christian and atheistic regimes are so
notorious that H&R posters bestow their ultimate insult on the
tyrants, calling them religious ("religious" is a H&R word
meaning "doing stuff I don't like").
Guy Montag|11.23.07 @ 10:33PM|#
No war but class war?
I heard the WTO protestors with masks chanting that.
troll|11.24.07 @ 7:47AM|#
calling it poster, despite knowing that it wasn't, makes it
sound like the image had more social significance an illustration
for some soft-core porn
You talkin' 'bout me?
BobDobalina|11.24.07 @ 12:00PM|#
Nice Thanksgiving link, Katherine. Great site from Lileks. Loved the "Ghost Signs" segment. When I first moved to Chicago in 1990 as a small town yokel, it was one of the things that endeared me most to the city. That is, until I noticed one day on the train that one of my favorite ghost canvasses had been painted over with advertising for a real Holiday Turkey, the movie "V.I. Warsharsky." Imagine some poor kid discovering THAT in 80 years.
Mad Max|11.24.07 @ 4:10PM|#
"Ron Paul is a pathetic joke, and I will have the last
laugh."
I hope you were twirling your moustache when you said that. Adds to
the effect.
|11.24.07 @ 9:04PM|#
Edward:
In 1996, Paul was one of only two candidates endorsed by
Christian Identity leader Larry Pratt
So what?? This says nothing negative about Ron Paul. But your
hitting on the Christian thing isn't near as bad as your ridiculous
Nazi/racist contentions. So that's some progress.
|11.24.07 @ 9:26PM|#
Edward,
You should know that of all the current presidential candidates,
Ron Paul is the most opposed to faith-based initiatives, the giving
of the taxpayers' money to religious groups. Note as well that
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama support faith-based
initiatives.
http://pewforum.org/religion08/compare.php?Issue=Faith__Based_Initiatives
|11.24.07 @ 9:38PM|#
Edward:
...I will have the last laugh.
Well, your arguments against Ron Paul are unintentionally
funny.
|11.25.07 @ 2:02AM|#
"No, Ron Paul supporter -- I expect you to die!"
"You only live twice, Mr. Paul!"
"I'm Plenty ... Plenty O'Toole."
Syloson of Samos|11.25.07 @ 10:11AM|#
It should be noted that the U.S. was the first nation to undertake compulsory sterilization; or rather, numerous U.S. states did. The laws which permitted these practices remained on the books at the time that this picture appears to have been made.
Edward|11.25.07 @ 5:08PM|#
Here's a Libertarian who think Ron Paul is a loser:
[Ilya Somin, November 20, 2007 at 4:56pm] Trackbacks
Reflections on Ron Paul:
Various people have asked me what I think of Ron Paul's
presidential campaign, and whether it will be good for
libertarianism. Here's my take:
Ron Paul deserves credit for his strong commitment to limited
government on many issues, including taxes, regulation, federal
spending, and federalism-based limits on federal government power.
Nonetheless, I am skeptical that his candidacy will provide much of
a boost to libertarianism. There are also a number of major
nonlibertarian elements to Paul's issue positions, some of which
are extremely disturbing. The worst is his highly statist position
on immigration.
Read more...
http://volokh.com/posts/1195595767.shtml
|11.27.07 @ 1:04AM|#
Edward:
Here's a Libertarian who think Ron Paul is
a loser:
That's not an accurate characterization of what the guy wrote.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245