March 13, 2014

Ron (Not Rand) Paul Supports Crimea's Right to "Self-Determination"
— Ace

As usual, Paul makes a sound point and then buries it in an avalanche of hyperideological crankery.

He's quite right that sections of nations ought to have the right to secede from the body of the nation. I'm not sold on this baseline assumption that randomly drawn borders from 1930 represent the best possible unit of self-governance.

I think the non-Allowite areas of Syria should be permitted to secede from Syria. I wish Iraq had simply been broken into pieces in 2004. (Although there are significant problems with doing so -- such as the Shi'ite areas having most of the oil and the Kurds the most of the rest, with very little in the Sunni-held areas.)

In a perfect world, I'd like to see a massive property exchange in Kashmir, so that Muslims can move (voluntarily) to areas closer to Pakistan and Hindus can move to an area closer to India; then partition it.

A lot of people are dying for a border some guy drew on a piece of paper 50 years ago, or dying for the right and privilege of having a political superiority over another Tribe of people.

So I don't object to Paul's basic point that a Crimean secession from Ukraine is somehow unthinkable.

What I object to is the rest of it, the denial of obvious facts as being ideologically inconvenient -- as regards the Russian invasion of Crimea, he says Russia has a treaty to maintain a naval base at Sevastapol, so, if I'm following this correctly, obviously they also have a right to send in tanks and APCs.

He also claims "we" are in there as well, that is, America and the EU. The fact that "we" did not bring our tanks and APCs seems to be a minor point that hardly merits a mention.

Paul has some points right, but then he buries those points in relentlessly anti-American "Empire" narrative no different at all from the same pap preached by Howard Zinn and Oliver Stone.

But you can be the judge.

Allah considers this all, as well as the possible impact on Rand Paul's candidacy.

So What's Going On Here? I'll ask since you didn't.

Most people would like to conceive themselves as idealists and do not like confessing to selfish impulses.

Now, much of isolation is predicated on a selfish impulse: Let them work it out themselves; we will not trade the lives of our boys to spare theirs.

This selfishness is... not a bad thing. It does make a great deal of sense to question, whenever America is going to undertake a military response, if the lives of the people we hope to save are equal in number and value to the lives we will be sacrificing in their favor.

How many foreign lives is one of our Boys worth? I'd say -- and you can say I'm selfish or I hate foreigners, but I'd just respond that I'm inclined to favor my own countrymen -- one of Our Boys is worth at least 100 foreign civilians, and probably more than that.

Now, I know those foreign civilians would see it differently -- but of course the foreign civilians are doing the same thing I am, valuing a life more highly based on its closeness and connection. An American is close and connected to me in a way an Iraqi frankly is not. I wish the Iraqis well, but of course I value American lives more.

So there is a selfishness here, or at least a self-interestedness, and this is also a subjective thing; I value American lives more because they are American. Period.

But people do not like admitting they are ever capable of being selfish or that they engage in subjective reasoning. They must always claim to be acting out of altruism, and engaging in purely objective reasoning.

So the real answer as to why we shouldn't go intervening everywhere around the world -- because we're selfish of our treasure and protective of those in the American Family -- isn't favored by those claiming to be Idealists.

And what do Idealists do, then, if the best explanation to justify their preferences doesn't seem elevated enough?

Well, what they do then is begin working to offer a different explanation, one that doesn't sound selfish or subjective.

And the explanation they wind up offering, most of the time, is that America is evil, American exercise of power is evil (and not merely misguided or a poor trade of American lives for foreign ones), and the evil done by foreign powers is either only as evil, or even less evil, than the evils worked by Americans.

Now they're speaking in terms of Idealism, not Selfishness: They, like interventionists, are crusading against evil.

It's just that that evil is principally located in the dark heart of the American Empire.

Rather than saying "I'm against going on crusades against dragons overseas," and acknowledge there are indeed evils afoot in the world which he will not support action against, the Idealist is still determined to go on crusades against an evil dragon himself: And that evil dragon is called the United States of America.

In this way many isolationists poison their movement and set people against it.

There is a great difference between two underlying theories for isolationism:

America is too good to put itself at risk for the benefit of the rest of the world

versus

The rest of the world is too good to be tainted by America.

Why people like Paul always have to come down to that second formulation escapes me.


Posted by: Ace at 01:02 PM | Comments (378)
Post contains 949 words, total size 6 kb.

1 Look, if Obama's Dad, whomever he was, did not hurt him, maybe Ron won't hurt Rand.

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes, We Be Bossy at March 13, 2014 01:05 PM (kXoT0)

2 I don't think Ron Paul hurts Rand's election chances as much as it helps him. Its a push, with a slight lean toward bonus, in my opinion.
Most people don't know about Ron Paul except that he's a third party guy, and its too complicated and confusing for Joe the LIV to understand. You can't sound bite Ron Paul's confusion.
I mean, for the people who are politically active, the Democrats will vote for the Democrat to stop any Republican from gaining power, and the Republicans will vote Republican to stop any Democrat from gaining power, so the actual candidate is irrelevant.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 13, 2014 01:05 PM (zfY+H)

3 There's so much we do not know about Rand's thinking. I had to reflect into Ron's to get it.

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at March 13, 2014 01:05 PM (IXrOn)

4 Actually..... I am very surprised Obama hasnt used Crimea's vote to join Russia as a "get out of a pickle free card".

I really thought he make some announcement that he supports self determination, respects the vote of the "Crimeanites" and just gives Crimea to Putin so he can get the issue of his plate and out of the press.


Posted by: fixerupper at March 13, 2014 01:06 PM (nELVU)

5 I'll get the others...

Posted by: Insomniac at March 13, 2014 01:06 PM (DrWcr)

6 >>>Look, if Obama's Dad, whomever he was, did not hurt him, maybe Ron won't hurt Rand.

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes, We Be Bossy at March 13, 2014 05:05 PM (kXoT0)<<<



It's so cute you think that. *pinches cheek*

Posted by: MFM at March 13, 2014 01:06 PM (stVgz)

7 Having a crank for a father, no matter how loveable, has got to be a trial for the son.

Posted by: toby928© at March 13, 2014 01:06 PM (QupBk)

8 Shorter Ron Paul opinions: a pony buried under a mountain of manure.

Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at March 13, 2014 01:07 PM (GEICT)

9 The Jooos will get Crimea in the end. Mark my words.

Posted by: Mel Gibson at March 13, 2014 01:07 PM (8ZskC)

10 7 Having a crank for a father, no matter how loveable, has got to be a trial for the son.

Posted by: toby928© at March 13, 2014 05:06 PM (QupBk)

 

Tell me about it...

Posted by: Mel Gibson at March 13, 2014 01:08 PM (DrWcr)

11 The Russians And The Ukraine: A History Of Atrocities


http://tinyurl.com/knqauc3

Posted by: SoRo at March 13, 2014 01:08 PM (htf6F)

12 Yeah, to hell with Ron Paul.

Posted by: Costanza Defense at March 13, 2014 01:08 PM (ZPrif)

13 I love how we've managed to get everyone thinking Mel Gibson is the ultimate evil racist, that'll show him for putting out that Jesus movie in 2004. And don't let any of the rest of you get any ideas either or you get the Gibson treatment.

Posted by: The Left at March 13, 2014 01:08 PM (zfY+H)

14 You can't sound bite Ron Paul's confusion. Ahahahahaha!

Posted by: NBC at March 13, 2014 01:08 PM (TVDmb)

15 It's so cute you think that. *pinches cheek*

Posted by: MFM at March 13, 2014 05:06 PM (stVgz)


What, you could not hear the sarcasm?  One needs look no further than the Bushes to see how a Dad can be used against the son and vice versa.

Posted by: Sherry McEvil, Stiletto Corsettes, We Be Bossy at March 13, 2014 01:09 PM (kXoT0)

16

Interesting fact re Crimea:

 

They are somewhat independent of Ukraine already.  I believe they operate under their own constitution and actually have formal recognition of this and their borders from Ukraine.

 

Other fun fact:

 

In ancient Greece the city-state that lived on Crimea would human sacrifice any traveler that landed on Crimea w/out being invited.  Their god was the god of the hunt, some woman god with an A that escapes me.  So there's that.  haha.

Posted by: prescient11 at March 13, 2014 01:09 PM (tVTLU)

17 If the Ukraine is ok with disgorging the Crimea to Russia, in return for payment (or debt forgiveness), I agree.     It is when         Russia     decides to 'help' the cause   along,     that      I start having problems    with it.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at March 13, 2014 01:09 PM (CpbrP)

18 Chris Matthews pronounces the Senate a lost cause for Democrats. Prediction: Harry Reid ends up like the warden in The Shawshank Redemption when the cops arrive to deliver the arrest warrant.

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at March 13, 2014 01:09 PM (oFCZn)

19 I wish Iraq had simply been broken into pieces in 2004. Just for the record, you're in agreement with Joe Biden?

Posted by: Nobody currently banned [/i] at March 13, 2014 01:10 PM (CnA98)

20 He says the Americans contrived to overthrow the legally elected government over there. Go away old man.

Posted by: grammie winger at March 13, 2014 01:10 PM (oMKp3)

21 If there were any lessons we should have learned from Vietnam (and relearned in Iraq) is the US can't fight someone's fight for them. If Ukraine wants to be free of Russian control, they have to fight for it. We can help, but they have to do most of it themselves.


Posted by: Just another anonymous 'Smith' at March 13, 2014 01:11 PM (QZPtZ)

22 Michael Savage makes this non-point as well. We are there, he intones. Of course, left unsaid is that it isn't with bullets and soldiers. Russians are only protecting their own, from whom is left unsaid, of course, as they don't need any protection.

Posted by: ejo at March 13, 2014 01:11 PM (GXvSO)

23 Well the Crimea was predominantly Tatar, but the annexation in the 18th Century, the expulsion in the 20th, under Stalin, as he did with all the tribes of the Caucasus, made the Russian majority there. a fait accompli.

Posted by: Corolianus Snow at March 13, 2014 01:11 PM (Jsiw/)

24 So Mr. Simpson, you admit you grabbed her can?

Posted by: Kent Brockman at March 13, 2014 01:11 PM (TVDmb)

25 Check Ron Paul's feet.  Its a bad sign if he's wearing Kleenex boxes instead of shoes.

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at March 13, 2014 01:12 PM (8ZskC)

26 If only the sane portions of this country could separate from the rest. "Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, on this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." But they apparently have no right to separate after that first time.

Posted by: D-Lamp at March 13, 2014 01:12 PM (bb5+k)

27

Ron Paul is cuckoo for cocoa puffs crazy. If that deranged old conspiracy crank ever makes a sound point anywhere, it's purely the law of chance at work that says shit thrown through the air will eventually hit something. 

Posted by: troyriser at March 13, 2014 01:12 PM (V9ol4)

28 That is a Paulite/hard libertarian talking point: that the EU had double secret special agents working to overthrow the duly elected government in the Ukraine. I saw a report on Russia Today that showed those Y'protesters'Y (Y = air quotes) were armed with tear gas and guns!

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 13, 2014 01:13 PM (zfY+H)

29 The fact that Ron Paul yet again is blaming America for troubles in other countries makes me want to punch him in his stupid eyebrows.

Posted by: DangerGirl at March 13, 2014 01:13 PM (GrtrJ)

30

Self-determination of a people is tricky to tie to geography.  Today's Crimeans are the people who happen to live in Crimea today.  The Soviets relocated the Tatars, some have moved back.  The Soviets put in ethnic Russians, many stayed. 

 

We're so used to nation states with stable borders, but that's not most of history especially in that part of the world.  Belarus is where a lot of Poland was.  Polish Gdansk was German Danzig, with a "contrived corridor" (T.S. Eliot) dividing it from Polish parts around it. 

 

The USSR in particular did wholesale relocations of people to places where they could die with less Soviet effort required. 

 

So you can't just say "local autonomy / self-determination" that simply.

Posted by: Frumious Bandersnatch at March 13, 2014 01:13 PM (A0sHn)

31 "He's quite right that sections of nations ought to have the right to secede from the body of the nation."

I completely agree.  Abe Lincoln however...

Posted by: not neo just conservative at March 13, 2014 01:14 PM (MNXL5)

32 The one thing that bothers me about this Ukrainian crisis and American Involvement is that our US Ambassador to either Russia or to the Ukraine who was stupid enough to let herself be taped encouraging the "Rebels" in the Ukraine and telling the Russians to go fuck themselves? I mean OK, fine, but unless you are ready to back that up, and of course they were not, keep your trap shut or don't be stupid enough to say that on an unsecure line

Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 13, 2014 01:14 PM (t3UFN)

33 Harry Reid is the Ron Paul of the Democrats.

Posted by: WalrusRex at March 13, 2014 01:14 PM (XUKZU)

34 Actually..... I am very surprised Obama hasnt used Crimea's vote to join Russia as a "get out of a pickle free card".

I really thought he make some announcement that he supports self determination, respects the vote of the "Crimeanites" and just gives Crimea to Putin so he can get the issue of his plate and out of the press.


Posted by: fixerupper at March 13, 2014 05:06 PM (nELVU)

 

 

------------------------------------------------

 

 

Give him time.  I'm sure he hasn't read the newspapers yet.

Posted by: Soona at March 13, 2014 01:14 PM (Wz9US)

35 Ron also said that when John Kerry-Heinz negotiates that big fcuking contract for Tartar Sauce, the Ukraine will have an equal measure of flexibility.

Posted by: Fritz at March 13, 2014 01:14 PM (UzPAd)

36 It is amazing that certain areas of the world remain "hot spots." Middle East Crimea Serbia Ireland

Posted by: The Yellow Pug at March 13, 2014 01:15 PM (r7mtu)

37

In ancient Greece the city-state that lived on Crimea would human sacrifice any traveler that landed on Crimea w/out being invited. Their god was the god of the hunt, some woman god with an A that escapes me.

 

That'd be me.

Posted by: Athena at March 13, 2014 01:15 PM (5iuEW)

38 In before the crazies?

Posted by: Adam at March 13, 2014 01:15 PM (Aif/5)

39 Prediction: Harry Reid ends up like the warden in The Shawshank Redemption when the cops arrive to deliver the arrest warrant. ------------- That would make Christmas anti-climactic.

Posted by: --- at March 13, 2014 01:15 PM (zBXeK)

40 Posted by: fixerupper at March 13, 2014 05:06 PM (nELVU)
*****

You didn't take in account Obama's bruised ego.

Posted by: lymond at March 13, 2014 01:15 PM (fzxq4)

41 32 Harry Reid is the Ron Paul of the Democrats. He said today that the Ukraine situation is the fault of the Koch brothers. Reid, I mean.

Posted by: grammie winger at March 13, 2014 01:16 PM (oMKp3)

42

Check Ron Paul's feet.

 

Hey, I don't swing that way!

Posted by: Dick Morris at March 13, 2014 01:16 PM (5iuEW)

43 Secretary of State John Kerry warned of serious repercussions for Russia on Monday if last-ditch talks over the weekend to resolve the crisis in Ukraine failed to persuade Moscow to soften its stance. These fuckin idiots are delusional.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 13, 2014 01:17 PM (t3UFN)

44 Ron Paul is 'trying-to-bite-your-own-face' crazy.

Posted by: --- at March 13, 2014 01:17 PM (zBXeK)

45 The timing here is horrible and Ron Paul knows it, he intends to offend. Imagine a libertarian having a theoretical, academic discussion about the Civil Rights Act and how maybe it would be better if people were free to discriminate. Now imagine that same libertarian having that same conversation in a town right after some neo-nazis had just burned down some black-owned businesses and the mayor ordered the fire department not to help put out the fires. There's a reason there has been an alliance between libertarians and neo-confederates for decades -- and it wasn't just so Ron Paul could make $$ of his newsletters. There are some nasty people who like to cloak their nastiness in layers of ideology. Ron Paul is a nasty man.

Posted by: Costanza Defense at March 13, 2014 01:17 PM (ZPrif)

46 Posted by: Athena at March 13, 2014 05:15 PM (5iuEW)


Thwack!!!!

Posted by: Artemis at March 13, 2014 01:17 PM (8ZskC)

47 "I wish Iraq had simply been broken into pieces in 2004."  Me, too, but I assumed it was an inherently stupid idea because no public figure other than Joe Biden advocated it. 

Posted by: Bud Norton at March 13, 2014 01:18 PM (6cOMd)

48 Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 13, 2014 05:17 PM (t3UFN) What's he going to do? Throw his medals at them?

Posted by: grammie winger at March 13, 2014 01:18 PM (oMKp3)

49 No, they told the EU to s@#$$#^$ themselves, not exactly the same thing,

Posted by: Corolianus Snow at March 13, 2014 01:18 PM (Jsiw/)

50 can we shoot Ron Paul at the sun on a giant rocket?

Posted by: The Dude at March 13, 2014 01:18 PM (bStrg)

51 I've listened to enough Ron Paul over the years to -- I think -- get his basic premise. Which is a totally logical premise to me -- that there are so many variables, so many unknowns that no matter how good our professed or real intentions may be, there's no way we can possibly anticipate all possible outcomes, and that a lot of times the outcomes are worse then what we were trying to avoid. It's the same argument against a government centrally planning an economy. For example, we support the mujahadeen in Afghanistan to fight the communist Soviets (not a bad idea on the face of it) and that (indirectly) leads to the organization that was responsible for 9/11. Or we support (pick your dictator) who is not vehemently anti-west and we can work with, then when the people overthrow him, they use the US as a scapegoat for their problems (unfairly or fairly). We've spent 75 years trying to do the "right thing" and we rarely get thanks and appreciation for it and usually end up getting more grief then it's worth. And I think under all of the babbling that's Rons basic point, and I don't know that I disagree.

Posted by: common sense at March 13, 2014 01:18 PM (azmhu)

52 The Tatar Tots have come home. To roost.

Posted by: Jeremiah Wright at March 13, 2014 01:18 PM (ImNRL)

53 He's quite right that sections of nations ought to have the right to secede from the body of the nation. I'm not sold on this baseline assumption that randomly drawn borders from 1930 represent the best possible unit of self-governance.

Preach it, Ace!

Posted by: The Confederate States at March 13, 2014 01:19 PM (IN7k+)

54 43 Ron Paul is 'trying-to-bite-your-own-face' crazy. Posted by: --- at March 13, 2014 05:17 PM (zBXeK) Someone said that about McCain, that McCain always looks like he's trying to bite/eat his own face. Hilarious.

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at March 13, 2014 01:19 PM (oFCZn)

55 though Ace agreeing with Biden on Iraq is hilarious

Posted by: The Dude at March 13, 2014 01:19 PM (bStrg)

56 Shit, was it Athena??  I thought it was god of the woods or something but you might be right. 

Posted by: prescient11 at March 13, 2014 01:19 PM (tVTLU)

57 Garry Kasparov ‏@Kasparov63 All the major opposition news websites were just wiped off the interet in Russia. No court order, simply blocked. Welcome to China. Garry Kasparov ‏@Kasparov63 These are huge news sites, not political groups. Giant Echo of Moscow site now just gone. Grani, EJ, Navalny's blog, all blocked in Russia. Garry Kasparov ‏@Kasparov63 Kasparov.ru, which has become a big news site, is also now blocked in Russia. Was a law just passed saying no court order required for this. Garry Kasparov ‏@Kasparov63 Obviously Putin is preparing something drastic if he's blacking out the last sources of truth in Russia. I fear for the safety of Ukraine.

Posted by: Costanza Defense at March 13, 2014 01:19 PM (ZPrif)

58

The new Ace Way.  Read the post.  Think about the post. Comment on the post. Hit refresh and find another post-length post tacked on to the original post. 

 

 

Posted by: Frumious Bandersnatch at March 13, 2014 01:20 PM (A0sHn)

59 I've said earlier that I do not like Russia's physical presence in Crimera but I also have problems with our inconsistency regard to the overthrow of , by all international measures , a legitimately elected government especially when they agreed to hold early elections. I don't like the inconsistency but I understand it. At least lie and take a stance that you believe the government was illegitimate because of election fraud.

Posted by: Rob Banks at March 13, 2014 01:20 PM (ODr92)

60 I am personally inclined to let these folks work their shit out amongst themselves. However, I am afraid that we are going to end up neck deep in this shit with Russia sooner or later, and if history is any indicator, I think it's very likely to be much worse the longer we stay out. It's rock-and-a-hard-place territory here. I sure as shit don't want war with Russia either way, but it's looking more and more to me like they may want war with us.

Posted by: Mandy P., lurking lurker who lurks at March 13, 2014 01:20 PM (qFpRI)

61 American Empire? Sheeeit, I was in gym a bit ago, the tv was on mute and what came on? Kermit the effing frog with 1st lady and general dempsey. Without sound, they all looked like clowns with the frog. All the serious shit happening in the world and chairman is doing pressers with a frog n wookie. Cant have an empire with shit like that being displayed to the world. Fuuuck. (Yes, it was for a good cause, military family support but the optics blew)

Posted by: fastfreefall at March 13, 2014 01:20 PM (rZUdc)

62 There are some nasty people who like to cloak their nastiness in layers of ideology. Ron Paul is a nasty man.

Posted by: Costanza Defense at March 13, 2014 05:17 PM (ZPrif)

 

Yeah, I got permabanned from Free Republic several years ago for being less than polite with a bunch of neo-confederate assholes. That 'Lincoln as tyrant' line gets under my skin in a big way. So does the 'It wasn't about slavery' line.

Posted by: troyriser at March 13, 2014 01:21 PM (V9ol4)

63 Yeah, but Biden wanted to split Iraq into four parts each named after a Teletubby.

Posted by: --- at March 13, 2014 01:21 PM (nuchF)

64 There's a section of the Libertarian community that thinks all war is wrong; that the use of force always by definition is a violation of liberty and hence wrong, that all government requires the use of force and hence is wrong, and war is the ultimate expression of the use of force and hence the ultimate wrong.
So they're going into overdrive trying to head off what they think is the building drums of war with Russia.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 13, 2014 01:22 PM (zfY+H)

65

It's rock-and-a-hard-place territory here. I sure as shit don't want war with Russia either way, but it's looking more and more to me like they may want war with us.

 

--

 

Take a look at the demographics of Russia, China, and Iran.  Several     actors want a war sooner than later.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at March 13, 2014 01:22 PM (CpbrP)

66 Russia will do what Russia wants to do. Ukraine is stuck between a rock and a hard place. They gave up their arms on belief that the US and UK would help them out. Obama is a weakling and he will not do anything. What has he done so far? Nothing. His harsh words makes Putin laugh. So at the end of the day, Russia will do what it will and nothing will happen to change that.

Posted by: Misanthopic Humanitarian at March 13, 2014 01:22 PM (HVff2)

67 62 Yeah, but Biden wanted to split Iraq into four parts each named after a Teletubby.

Posted by: --- at March 13, 2014 05:21 PM (nuchF)

 

Derka derka Tinky-Winky derka?

Posted by: confused Iraqi at March 13, 2014 01:22 PM (DrWcr)

68 Kermit the effing frog with 1st lady and general dempsey. -------- Yeah I saw that. Probably trying to scare Putin.

Posted by: Adam at March 13, 2014 01:22 PM (Aif/5)

69 Shit, was it Athena?? I thought it was god of the woods or something but you might be right.

Posted by: prescient11 at March 13, 2014 05:19 PM (tVTLU)


*cough* *Tauris* *cough*

Posted by: Artemis at March 13, 2014 01:22 PM (8ZskC)

70 Ace? The calculus gets deeper when you look at America since WW2... How many lives are worth the Status quo?... ie the Korean War. Then... how many American lives are worth a loss... in Viet Nam... and maybe soon Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm retired Navy. My Son is currently stationed in Guam.... I come from a long line of Service stretching back to Valley Forge (direct ancestor). I am not anti War.... but I am anti WASTING the lives of our best and brightest... in things we are not going to actually solve anyway... I am now in a binary decision set... Total War or no War... The US Military has been at war for over a Decade... the US itself? not so much.

Posted by: Romeo13 at March 13, 2014 01:23 PM (84gbM)

71

Isn't sort of...odd...that Democrat presidential candidates don't have Dads?

 

 

Posted by: wheatie at March 13, 2014 01:23 PM (8quPO)

72 Putin doesn't have any right to Ukrainian land. And Ukrainian nationalists don't have any right to Russian land.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at March 13, 2014 01:23 PM (jhfwW)

73 Prediction: Harry Reid ends up like the warden in The Shawshank Redemption when the cops arrive to deliver the arrest warrant. I would have a tingle going up my leg so hard, the 'ettes could sit on my lap and "ride the lightning".

Posted by: rickb223 at March 13, 2014 01:23 PM (t+DWU)

74 The global economy is going to be a real bitch.

Posted by: tasker at March 13, 2014 01:23 PM (RJMhd)

75 I think Ace's point about Ron Paul's idealism being a mirror of neo-con idealism is true. "American exceptionalism" has come to mean that we can't even HAVE a selfish national interest, much less admit it.

Posted by: Margarita DeVille at March 13, 2014 01:24 PM (dfYL9)

76 Posted by: common sense at March 13, 2014 05:18 PM (azmhu) *** The Ron Paul problem is one of inarticulation?

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at March 13, 2014 01:24 PM (DmNpO)

77 70...Isn't *it* sort of odd

Posted by: wheatie at March 13, 2014 01:24 PM (8quPO)

78 Ron Paul and Rand Paul could make the same argument yet you would think Ron is a kook and Rand is rational.

Posted by: SH at March 13, 2014 01:24 PM (gmeXX)

79 >>>though Ace agreeing with Biden on Iraq is hilarious but in principle, I have no particular affection for the contrived state of "Iraq." People are more important than other considerations. Unfortunately in Iraq's case there are considerations (Turkey's objection to a free kurdistan, very unequal Oil Spoils) that make that solution impractical.

Posted by: Guy Who Likes Combining Memes at March 13, 2014 01:24 PM (/FnUH)

80
Garry Kasparov þ@Kasparov63
Obviously Putin is preparing something drastic if he's blacking out the last sources of truth in Russia. I fear for the safety of Ukraine.

Posted by: Costanza Defense at March 13, 2014 05:19 PM (ZPrif)

 

 

-------------------------------------------

 

 

Interesting.  But the steady flow of personnel, tanks, and  APCs into the Crimea should have been the real tip-off.

Posted by: Soona at March 13, 2014 01:24 PM (Wz9US)

81 What is a nation? Is it land or is it people? If two tribes move into an area and, over time, one has 55% of the population, then can they determine that the whole land goes to their brethren? How does this work, exactly? Muslims believe that any land that has ever been in "Muslim control" is Muslim forever. Some people think because some peoples' ancestors (and let's not get into thinking about parsing blood) were on a land mass 4000 years ago, that there's some sort of continental squatter's rights. Yet we can't govern without land borders. I read something interesting lately. The English, around the early 17th century thought that, of course a nation is made of land. Hence, it made no sense to give the vote to everyone, just those who owned land. After all, you wouldn't have stake in your nation otherwise. You could just cross a border. Done. Hence a lot of early voting rights, even in America, where there really wasn't a landed class to make the delineations clear, required land ownership. Anyway, these partitions don't really work, unless there's a fence separating them.

Posted by: AmishDude at March 13, 2014 01:24 PM (T0NGe)

82 I wrote an essay about habeus corpus and Abraham Lincoln for a History course. After a lot of research from many sources, this Yankee's opinion of Lincoln went down considerably.

Posted by: Soothsayer at March 13, 2014 01:25 PM (IW1TI)

83 I wish Texas would 'self-determine' away from that broke ass shit-hole in DC.

Posted by: Schwalbe: The Me-262© at March 13, 2014 01:25 PM (9Bdcz)

84

This is why I do not like Rand as a Presidential candidate. 

 

Maybe after the old man kicks off?  Definitely not before then. 

Posted by: rd at March 13, 2014 01:25 PM (D+lxs)

85 I value American lives more because they are American. Period. -- And many of the ruling class-- including leading Libertarian thinkers like Tyler Cowen -- think that is deeply immoral. They believe and promulgate a pure utilitarian ideology -- that you should value a Mexican, Nigerian, Iraqi, or Chinese life the same as an American life. No more, no less. It's why they support Open Borders on principle.

Posted by: Costanza Defense at March 13, 2014 01:25 PM (ZPrif)

86 61 My family never owned slaves, they fought for the South, several died fighting for the South, and Lincoln was a tyrant.

Lincoln in 1848 "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better.”

Lincoln in 1862 "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 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"

Courtesy of the Cato Institute.

Posted by: not neo just conservative at March 13, 2014 01:25 PM (MNXL5)

87 Ron Paul and Rand Paul could make the same argument yet you would think Ron is a kook and Rand is rational.

Posted by: SH at March 13, 2014 05:24 PM (gmeXX)

 

I don't have that problem.

Posted by: troyriser at March 13, 2014 01:25 PM (V9ol4)

88

We've spent 75 years trying to do the "right thing" and we rarely get thanks and appreciation for it and usually end up getting more grief then it's worth.

And I think under all of the babbling that's Rons basic point, and I don't know that I disagree.

 

--

 

We also have had 75 years of mostly stable prices for commodities that sail the world's   oceans, because we are the world's policeman.   Not saying you are wrong, but there are    both     costs and benefits to every intervention.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at March 13, 2014 01:25 PM (CpbrP)

89 16 Interesting fact re Crimea: They are somewhat independent of Ukraine already. I believe they operate under their own constitution and actually have formal recognition of this and their borders from Ukraine. Other fun fact: In ancient Greece the city-state that lived on Crimea would human sacrifice any traveler that landed on Crimea w/out being invited. Their god was the god of the hunt, some woman god with an A that escapes me. So there's that. haha. Posted by: prescient11 at March 13, 2014 05:09 PM (tVTLU) --- Artemis, IIRC. Fun fact: Plague found Europe via Crimea.

Posted by: Gingy @GingyNorth at March 13, 2014 01:26 PM (N/cFh)

90 74 I think Ace's point about Ron Paul's idealism being a mirror of neo-con idealism is true. "American exceptionalism" has come to mean that we can't even HAVE a selfish national interest, much less admit it. Posted by: Margarita DeVille at March 13, 2014 05:24 PM (dfYL9) It's part of the delusion that the rest of the world somehow behaves altruistically. Or at least Europe. Oh, no, they are all about wars for oil.

Posted by: AmishDude at March 13, 2014 01:26 PM (T0NGe)

91

Luap Nor will be the albatross around Rand Paul's neck if he decides to run for President.

 

Unless he smothers him with a pillow like Barky did with his granny.

Posted by: wheatie at March 13, 2014 01:27 PM (8quPO)

92 CPSU originally granted the Crimea a degree of autonomy within the Russian Republic within the Soviet Union as a fuck you to "petty bourgeois Russian nationalists and nationalism." In 1954, CPSU then ordered the Supreme Soviet to redistribute the Crimea along with other parts of the Russian Republic to the Ukrainian Republic.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at March 13, 2014 01:27 PM (jhfwW)

93 74 I think Ron paul would argue that it's in Americas best interest to not get engaged in foreign entanglements when avoidable. And when we do need to get involved, it should be with overwhelming and unrelenting force. I would say we need a very strong military that says "don't f with us," and when we deploy our troops, it should only be for situations where we're ready to rain hell down upon people. That being said, I don't agree with involving ourselves in every squabble around the globe. Many of these tribal / border wars have been going on for hundreds of years and are really not our problem.

Posted by: common sense at March 13, 2014 01:27 PM (azmhu)

94 Ace: "Now they're speaking in terms of Idealism, not Selfishness: They, like interventionists, are crusading against evil.

It's just that that evil is principally located in the dark heart of the American Empire."

That's pretty astute. And a damning indictment of Rand. I can't say I disagree though Rand parses his argument pretty well. But, ultimately, the Idealism harms actual America and not the idealistic America. I live in the actual one so I have to deal with what harms this country most; so intervention is actually necessary and beneficial... but not always.

In this case I think Rand wrong. The Soviet Empire is being reconstructed one sovereign region at a time. Is that really what he wants? 'Cause it's happening as we invoke parchment peace.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at March 13, 2014 01:27 PM (1CroS)

95 Look we are not going to do shit over the Ukraine, just as we did not do shit over Hungary. What we did do over Hungary and the rest of the Soviet Unions land grabs is build a containment wall around them. That took a strong Military and the Will to enforce it. Today, we have no will and are hallowing out the Military. Putin is smiling

Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 13, 2014 01:28 PM (t3UFN)

96 Soros bragged about interfering with the Ukraine I think. Sent in open society troublemakers to place his own candidate in power back in the 90s and oughts. I doubt the USA has done much interfering. The elder Paul is actually my biggest problem with Rand. I just don't know what he really thinks. Ron Paul is brilliant and completely insane. After listening to him I want to refuse to obey traffic lights.

Posted by: Daybrother at March 13, 2014 01:28 PM (otKL9)

97 Zee Ron Paul, he is zee crazy, no?

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at March 13, 2014 01:28 PM (0LHZx)

98 btw, the late Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote a great book on Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus All The Laws But One: Civil Liberties In Wartime if you're interested.

Posted by: Soothsayer at March 13, 2014 01:28 PM (IW1TI)

99 Ron Paul was a gynecologist in the AF. I think he's going to just be naturally against anything- Pussy Riot is for...

Posted by: tasker at March 13, 2014 01:28 PM (RJMhd)

100 Laup Nor is a raving loon...

and his kid is already showing signs of going the same way.

Posted by: redc1c4 at March 13, 2014 01:28 PM (q+fqH)

101 So, we've put down another "red line" that we won't do anything about. Look at us, America the weak.

Posted by: DangerGirl at March 13, 2014 01:28 PM (GrtrJ)

102 Since the Soviet Union was actually a Union, legally speaking, this unconsensual redistribution, unlike the break-up of the Soviet Union was probably illegal.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at March 13, 2014 01:28 PM (jhfwW)

103 America is too good to put itself at risk for the benefit of the rest of the world versus The rest of the world is too good to be tainted by America. Why people like Paul always have to come down to that second formulation escapes me. Posted by: Ace at 05:02 PM I'm in a third camp... Who the hell are we to dictate how the rest of the world Lives? What works for US, may not work for them. Our Hubris, will be our downfall.

Posted by: Romeo13 at March 13, 2014 01:28 PM (84gbM)

104 69-you make a lot of sense. I go back to the first Gulf War, when we were in charge of a large international coalition with an army much larger than it is now. We had the enemy destroyed but quit. The problems would have been easier to manage then with our strength but Powell thought the optics looked bad and Bush I made a Bush blunder by agreeing. Mr. Overwhelming Force counseled stopping when we had that overwhelming force crushing an enemy.

Posted by: ejo at March 13, 2014 01:29 PM (GXvSO)

105 I am not anti War.... but I am anti WASTING the lives of our best and brightest... in things we are not going to actually solve anyway... I am now in a binary decision set... Total War or no War... The US Military has been at war for over a Decade... the US itself? not so much. Posted by: Romeo13 at March 13, 2014 05:23 PM (84gbM) ___________ Agreed 100%.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at March 13, 2014 01:29 PM (0LHZx)

106 Isn't sort of...odd...that Democrat presidential candidates don't have Dads? Nope. The Democrat coalition is daddy issues all the way down.

Posted by: AmishDude at March 13, 2014 01:29 PM (T0NGe)

107 What bothers me about people like Ron Paul is that they are in the thick of it. They have so much more information that cannot be exposed by him, or anyone else, and he knows it. These issues are so very complex. Unimaginable to most of us. So, he can spout evil-America as a surface argument, even though the devil is really in the details.

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at March 13, 2014 01:29 PM (IXrOn)

108 As usual, Paul makes a sound point and then buries it in an avalanche of hyperideological crankery. He's White and Southern so that should be "crackery". You're welcome.

Posted by: Daybrother at March 13, 2014 01:29 PM (24jjN)

109 Nevergiveup

There be red lines everywhere up in that administration.
still,  as the world has learned they mean little.

Posted by: willow at March 13, 2014 01:29 PM (nqBYe)

110 Whoops. I meant Ron not Rand @94.

I think I'll jump in the barrel now.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at March 13, 2014 01:29 PM (1CroS)

111 But CPSU can do no wrong. It exists above the laws it itself wrote, and WWIII must be started in order to defend its "antibourgeois" borders.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at March 13, 2014 01:30 PM (jhfwW)

112 Who the hell are we to dictate how the rest of the world Lives? What works for US, may not work for them. Our Hubris, will be our downfall. Posted by: Romeo13 at March 13, 2014 05:28 PM (84gbM) That'd be great, if they stayed in their own countries. Since there's a significant portion of the world population that has a problem with us/me, it becomes my business.

Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at March 13, 2014 01:30 PM (GEICT)

113

Posted by: not neo just conservative at March 13, 2014 05:25 PM (MNXL5)

 

Nobody likes a sore loser. You're just pissed off because Lincoln out-thought and out-fought the best the Confederacy had to offer. As an aside, I especially love Grant's memoirs when he writes about Jefferson Davis, that piece of shit traitor consumed by his own grandiosity and who styled himself the greatest military strategist of his generation. Whenever Grant mentions Davis' name in his memoirs, Grant writes 'Jefferson Davis, GENIUS' in all caps, which always makes me think of Wile E. Coyote in the cartoons. Hilarious.

Posted by: troyriser at March 13, 2014 01:30 PM (V9ol4)

114 Ukraine is stuck between a rock and a hard place. They gave up their arms on belief that the US and UK would help them out. Obama is a weakling and he will not do anything. What has he done so far? Nothing. His harsh words makes Putin laugh.

So at the end of the day, Russia will do what it will and nothing will happen to change that.

Posted by: Misanthopic Humanitarian at March 13, 2014 05:22 PM (HVff2)

 

 

----------------------------------------------

 

 

'Tis true.  And it will also make a  country formerly in love with the USA a sworn enemy. 

 

This is exactly what Dear Leader strives for.  All of this theater we've been seeing was planned a long time ago.

 

 

Posted by: Soona at March 13, 2014 01:30 PM (Wz9US)

115 Put a photo of Frank Martial Davis next to Obumbles and it is obvious. That is what is cooked on his B certificate. Joe's Phoenix posse of pros said the same thing.

Posted by: jrcobbstr at March 13, 2014 01:30 PM (OGuBw)

116 On the isolationism/selfishness comparison, I like to think of it in terms of a parenting parallel.  The people who have sheltered their children and enabled their children's bad behavior by providing a safety net into their 30s+ are always amazed at how their precious can end up in horrible circumstances all them time.  Thus, it is for nations. 

Without skin in the game or a stake in the outcome, how can we expect a little paternal intervention every so often to do anything other than perpetuate the shitty outcomes for these people off in these foreign lands? It just enables these people to sit back and let come what may.

That's why I'd favor less intervention over knee-jerk send in the troops responses as a default proposition (recognizing it is not ever such a black and white proposition).

Posted by: flounder at March 13, 2014 01:30 PM (Kkt/i)

117 Why people like Paul always have to come down to that second formulation escapes me. --- Partly because that's why the Left loved him. That's why Ron Paul was the one Repub to get cheered on college campuses. Yes, he was pro-weed. But he was also the only Republican who was anti-American. That really resonates with the Progressive Left.

Posted by: Costanza Defense at March 13, 2014 01:30 PM (ZPrif)

118 Most young people (who don't bother to vote because they believe it's not worth it) agree with Ron Paul's foreign policy. So, you know..

Posted by: Soothsayer at March 13, 2014 01:31 PM (IW1TI)

119 Problem, is that Ron Paul and his cultists are part of the "Blame America first" crowd. They claim that the world hates the U.S. because we interfere in other countries and if we just left everyone alone they'd all love us. The problem with this is that it either ignores other countries desire to interfere with other countries (including potentially our own), or they assume that this is some special evil that only the U.S. is capable of.

Posted by: The Political Hat at March 13, 2014 01:31 PM (AymDN)

120 Hinting Goddess: ARTEMIS

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at March 13, 2014 01:31 PM (0LHZx)

121 And hunting too!!

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at March 13, 2014 01:31 PM (0LHZx)

122 Whenever Grant mentions Davis' name in his memoirs, Grant writes 'Jefferson Davis, GENIUS' in all caps ---- True? That's pretty funny.

Posted by: SH at March 13, 2014 01:31 PM (gmeXX)

123 There be red lines everywhere up in that administration. still, as the world has learned they mean little. Posted by: willow at March 13, 2014 05:29 PM (nqBYe) They are all written in erasable ink, just like the obamacare law

Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 13, 2014 01:31 PM (t3UFN)

124 Holy crap--is the Civil War getting re-prosecuted here again?

Posted by: tasker at March 13, 2014 01:31 PM (RJMhd)

125 Kerry gives Putin an ultamatum by Monday as troops are now massing at Ukraines border, China says no way to any sanctions against Russia and the Indonesian Imbicele goes golfing and shopping at the GAP. This. Will. Not. End. Well.

Posted by: Alf767 at March 13, 2014 01:31 PM (JDY05)

126 When the British were in Mesopotamia, they had a lot of extremely well-educated experts on Mesopotamian history. Now people want to start WWIII without the slightest knowledge of Russian or Soviet history.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at March 13, 2014 01:32 PM (jhfwW)

127 So what happens after Ukraine? Is Moldova next? Moldova is right next to Romania, which is a NATO member. Shit's gonna get real interesting.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at March 13, 2014 01:32 PM (0LHZx)

128 This is going to end a lot more poorly than the Suez Canal "crisis."

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at March 13, 2014 01:32 PM (jhfwW)

129 Now people want to start WWIII without the slightest knowledge of Russian or Soviet history. Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at March 13, 2014 05:32 PM (jhfwW) Who wants to start WW3?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 13, 2014 01:33 PM (t3UFN)

130 18 Chris Matthews pronounces the Senate a lost cause for Democrats. Prediction: Harry Reid ends up like the warden in The Shawshank Redemption when the cops arrive to deliver the arrest warrant. Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at March 13, 2014 05:09 PM (oFCZn) Yeah, as he talks about how the "Democrats understand the complexities of modern...." Just stop right there. The stoopid goes over Ridiculous Speed and straight to Plaid.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Rounding Error Extraordinaire at March 13, 2014 01:33 PM (fkPNN)

131 Now people want to start WWIII without the slightest knowledge of Russian or Soviet history --- You can't understand modern day Russia by studying the Soviet Union alone.

Posted by: SH at March 13, 2014 01:33 PM (gmeXX)

132 87 Yeah, that's true... But how much of that is due to our military interventions and how much is due to our greatest export -- economic and personal liberty? I don't know the answer, obviously, but I suspect it has less to do with military prowess and more to do with exporting our values and culture. But even if we faced international trade instability, it wouldn't change my opinion on intervention.

Posted by: common sense at March 13, 2014 01:33 PM (azmhu)

133 You know how major wars    start?   Somebody gets slapped by a bully, and does nothing.  Then they get slapped again, and do nothing.  Then they get punched, and     they    pull out a gun   and start shooting.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at March 13, 2014 01:34 PM (CpbrP)

134 Yes, he was pro-weed. But he was also the only Republican who was anti-American. That really resonates with the Progressive Left. Posted by: Costanza Defense at March 13, 2014 05:30 PM (ZPrif) ____________ I'm not Ron Paul fan. But saying we should stay the fuck out of other countries' business does not equal Anti-American.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at March 13, 2014 01:34 PM (0LHZx)

135 Holy crap--is the Civil War getting re-prosecuted here again?

Posted by: tasker at March 13, 2014 05:31 PM (RJMhd)


that is kinda what Ron Paul always does if it doesn't involve TEH JOOOS

Posted by: The Dude at March 13, 2014 01:34 PM (bStrg)

136 I think every post from now on should end with this sentence of Ace's from the Mamet thread: And even when they got that far, they had a long slog back to actual civilization.

Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at March 13, 2014 01:34 PM (g4TxM)

137 At the same time, people are completely uninterested in enforcing the Monroe Doctrine and liberating Cuba, and now Venezuela from actual Communism.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at March 13, 2014 01:34 PM (jhfwW)

138 True? That's pretty funny.

Posted by: SH at March 13, 2014 05:31 PM (gmeXX)

 

True. http://tinyurl.com/mq74wbm

Posted by: troyriser at March 13, 2014 01:34 PM (V9ol4)

139 This Ron Paul fellow makes many valid points, and I wish to subscribe to his newsletter.

Also, I have proof that that the Koch Brothers used secret foreign Chamber of Commerce money to turn me into a presumed pederast! And they stole my remote control!

Posted by: Harry Reid at March 13, 2014 01:34 PM (KbrNh)

140 The isolationism streak didn't work when the world was smaller and less interconnected in the last century. I don't quite understand how it works now.

Posted by: ejo at March 13, 2014 01:34 PM (GXvSO)

141 Anti-Americanism is an example of what I call the "social scientific method". You have a thesis and you only accept data that supports the thesis. So if you are an anti-American, you point to failures of US policy or policy that had consequences that some people don't like. Consider British Imperialism. It stopped the slave trade. Had the British navy not enforced it, the slave trade would have been going full force. Today's Left (which isn't really against slavery, they just don't like it when it's privatized) would pass a resolution condemning it in the strongest terms and then shrug their shoulders.

Posted by: AmishDude at March 13, 2014 01:35 PM (T0NGe)

142 Luap Dnar!

Posted by: Chris M at March 13, 2014 01:35 PM (k3w9p)

143 Because only "sexy people" are really human. Everyone else? Not so much. Not that Putin is actually going to harm any "sexy sister fuckers." That would be bad PR.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at March 13, 2014 01:35 PM (jhfwW)

144 You can't understand modern day Russia by studying the Soviet Union alone. Posted by: SH at March 13, 2014 05:33 PM (gmeXX) _______ Russia has had a very constant history....strong dictatorial leader, who likes to invade neighbors. Go back 300 years, the names have changed, the actions haven't.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at March 13, 2014 01:36 PM (0LHZx)

145 >>>The problem with this is that it either ignores other countries desire to interfere with other countries (including potentially our own), or they assume that this is some special evil that only the U.S. is capable of. It's a vindictive, selective form of "idealism" that only finds fault with America for having national interests. Again, these guys need to read a history book. Any single one will do. The British allied with Russia, Prussia, and Spain to check France. Later they allied with France and Russia to check Germany. Rand Paul apparently thinks the American Empire created the Game of Nations.

Posted by: ace at March 13, 2014 01:36 PM (/FnUH)

146 The isolationism streak didn't work when the world was smaller and less interconnected in the last century. I don't quite understand how it works now.

Posted by: ejo at March 13, 2014 05:34 PM (GXvSO)


magic and crystals

Posted by: The Dude at March 13, 2014 01:36 PM (bStrg)

147

"He's quite right that sections of nations ought to have the right to secede from the body of the nation."

 

Did the 11 (really, 13) Confederate states have the right to secede from the American union?  Or does this right of secession only apply in non-American situations?

 

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at March 13, 2014 01:36 PM (YYJjz)

148 What if the Ruskies take Horseface hostage? Horseface Hostage Crisis 2014!!!!!

Posted by: The Yellow Pug at March 13, 2014 01:36 PM (r7mtu)

149

The isolationism streak didn't work when the world
was smaller and less interconnected in the last century. I don't quite
understand how it works now.

 

--

 

Thinking good thoughts, of course

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at March 13, 2014 01:36 PM (CpbrP)

150 On the other hand, Putin did actually murder a lot of brown-eyed Chechens. No one gave a shit. But if some blue-eyed sister fucker gets a paper cut, it's the end of the world.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at March 13, 2014 01:37 PM (jhfwW)

151 Yeah yeah war with Russia woo-hoo!!!!!!!

Posted by: Said No One at March 13, 2014 01:37 PM (Aif/5)

152 Agreed 100%. Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at March 13, 2014 05:29 PM (0LHZx) ahhh..... crap.... Moo Moo agreed with me... /rethinks... Nope.... still my opinion.... /smile

Posted by: Romeo13 at March 13, 2014 01:37 PM (84gbM)

153 >>>I'm not Ron Paul fan. But saying we should stay the f*ck out of other countries' business does not equal Anti-American. in his formulation it usually does, because he cannot help but put the cherry on top of the sundae and claim this is all due to American Empire and we made all these countries angry and hostile. When a Egyptian Cleric says this, we object, but when Ron Paul says it, some people applaud. It's stupid when said out of either mouth.

Posted by: ace at March 13, 2014 01:37 PM (/FnUH)

154 Rand Paul apparently thinks the American Empire created the Game of Nations. Posted by: ace at March 13, 2014 05:36 PM (/FnUH) Did you mean "Ron"?

Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at March 13, 2014 01:38 PM (GEICT)

155 Horseface Hostage Crisis -- Do We Invade? Or, Just Send a Couple Bales of Hay???

Posted by: The Yellow Pug at March 13, 2014 01:38 PM (r7mtu)

156 You see it as pursuing "national interests." The Ron Paul supporters see it as "foreign entanglements."

Posted by: Soothsayer at March 13, 2014 01:38 PM (IW1TI)

157 so how many here trust Barack Hussein Obama's judgement to lead this country in a war?

Posted by: X at March 13, 2014 01:38 PM (KHo8t)

158 148 What if the Ruskies take Horseface hostage?


Horseface Hostage Crisis 2014!!!!!

Posted by: The Yellow Pug at March 13, 2014 05:36 PM (r7mtu)


You can't rape the willing.

Posted by: flounder at March 13, 2014 01:38 PM (Kkt/i)

159 "So I don't object to Paul's basic point that a Crimean secession from Ukraine is somehow unthinkable." -Ace

I think people get what you mean--you agree with Paul's point that Ukraine should be able to secede (since you explained your position above this statement). However, the sentence you wrote means Paul's point is that a break up of Ukraine is unthinkable for some reason, and you don't disagree with that statement. Just looking out for clarity. Thanks for all your work.

Posted by: Flikery at March 13, 2014 01:39 PM (xr7eW)

160 Meanwhile, please throw out some prayers. Our son deploys tomorrow and his ship is heading to the Mediterranean.

Posted by: DangerGirl at March 13, 2014 01:39 PM (GrtrJ)

161 The Chechen War was actually quite interesting. Putin's kinetic defense of Christendom was a real thing.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at March 13, 2014 01:39 PM (jhfwW)

162 >>>Did the 11 (really, 13) Confederate states have the right to secede from the American union? Or does this right of secession only apply in non-American situations? I don't know, it's hard to separate the Confederacy's legal rights from the moral situation. Neo-Confederates will insist this had nothing to with slavery, but was about self-determination and the rules established by the Constitution. Which is... well, there is some truth in that. One can object when one feels the rules are being changed without consent, even if one actually favors the new rules (anti-slavery being the new rule). But to claim the "War Against Northern Aggression" had NOTHING to do with the despicable institution of slavery is... let's just say "untenable."

Posted by: ace at March 13, 2014 01:40 PM (/FnUH)

163 Invade now! Bomb bomb bomb.

Posted by: Said No One Except Maybe McCain at March 13, 2014 01:40 PM (Aif/5)

164 113

"Nobody likes a sore loser.  You're just pissed off blah, blah, blah, etc."

I'm not a sore loser and not pissed off.  Despite your very strong feelings about the matter, the war has been over for 150 years or so.  Just pointing out that there is more than one side to the story and not everyone who feels the South got a raw deal is a neo-confederate.

Keep in mind that the South didn't start the war and while some of it was about slavery, the number of slaveholders in the South was a pretty small number compared to the total population.  The majority of those who fought for the South fought for the South, not for slavery, including members of my family. 

Ever had a family member killed in a war?  Would you enjoy it if I made fun of them or called them racists?  You sound like a charter member of SDS.

Posted by: not neo just conservative at March 13, 2014 01:40 PM (MNXL5)

165 70 Isn't sort of...odd...that Democrat presidential candidates don't have Dads? Posted by: wheatie at March 13, 2014 05:23 PM (8quPO) Broken homes are part and parcel of their morally bankrupt ideology.

Posted by: D-Lamp at March 13, 2014 01:40 PM (bb5+k)

166 Or maybe it wasn't. Hollywood didn't make any movies about it, after all.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at March 13, 2014 01:40 PM (jhfwW)

167

in his formulation it usually does, because he cannot help but put the cherry on top of the sundae and claim this is all due to American Empire and we made all these countries angry and hostile.

When a Egyptian Cleric says this, we object, but when Ron Paul says it, some people applaud.

It's stupid when said out of either mouth.

 

--

 

It seems to me that this would appeal to persons of low self-esteem, which is saying something.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at March 13, 2014 01:40 PM (CpbrP)

168 People in the Ukraine had to know this would be a probable consequence of overthrowing a Russian allied government. They further poked the bear by immediately passing basically anti-Russian legislation. I don't blame them for their deep seated hatred but I do blame them for not thinking past their hatred. I wish they would have accepted the offer for early elections.

Posted by: Rob Banks at March 13, 2014 01:40 PM (ODr92)

169 Hollywood movie or it didn't happen.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at March 13, 2014 01:41 PM (jhfwW)

170 Secretary of State John Kerry told the House Committee on Foreign Affairs on Thursday afternoon that it is a "mistake" for people to raise the issue of whether Palestinians would agree to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. The Israeli government has insisted that Palestinians do so as part of an agreement, while Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and the nations of the Arab League have all rejected Israel's demand. "I think it's a mistake for some people to be raising it again and again as the decider," Kerry said, when asked to clarify the official position of the Obama administration. He pointed out that U.N. Resolution 181, which divided Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab state, referred to "Jewish state" several times, and that the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat had also explicitly recognized Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. Last week, State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki told the Palestinian Al-Quds newspaper that while the U.S. considered Israel a Jewish state, it was not necessary for the Palestinians to do so No kerry you are the mistake, you and your whole weak willed ignorant friends in that admin. It's weakness like this that makes our "enemies" and the "enemies" of Freedom not think twice about taking provacative actions. Ya know like taking over the Crimea and the rest of Ukraine and refuse to negotiate in goof faith like the palis do with Israel

Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 13, 2014 01:41 PM (t3UFN)

171 160 Meanwhile, please throw out some prayers. Our son deploys tomorrow and his ship is heading to the Mediterranean. Posted by: DangerGirl at March 13, 2014 05:39 PM (GrtrJ) You've got it, DangerGirl. May God keep your boy safely in His care, watch over him and protect him from all harm.

Posted by: grammie winger at March 13, 2014 01:41 PM (oMKp3)

172 If only there was a coherent national security strategy that integrated all the elements of national power to reach some clearly defined goals. Without that, it makes tougher to decide where to act. We're fucked.

Posted by: fastfreefall at March 13, 2014 01:41 PM (rZUdc)

173 He's Jimmy Carter on foreign policy.

Posted by: Boss Moss at March 13, 2014 01:41 PM (bitz6)

174

'Crimean succession' is one thing...

 

But 'Crimean succession at gunpoint' is something entirely different.

Posted by: wheatie at March 13, 2014 01:41 PM (8quPO)

175 Paul is airing his theoretical ideas about secession while Russian tanks rumble through Crimea and along the northern borders of Ukraine. Nice guy.

Posted by: Costanza Defense at March 13, 2014 01:42 PM (ZPrif)

176 SILVER DIMES!!!

Posted by: Luap Nor at March 13, 2014 01:42 PM (Q6pxP)

177 Join me and I will complete your training. With our combined strength we can end this destructive conflict and bring silver dimes to the galaxy.

Posted by: Darth Ron Paul at March 13, 2014 01:42 PM (dvRYt)

178 Blut und Boden.

Posted by: The Place that used to be Prussia at March 13, 2014 01:42 PM (A0sHn)

179 Putin also introduced a flat tax. Russian nationalists give all of Russia's land away and Russian Communists introduce the flat tax.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at March 13, 2014 01:43 PM (jhfwW)

180 Thoughts and prayers, DG.

Posted by: BCochran1981 - Credible Hulk at March 13, 2014 01:43 PM (GEICT)

181 145 ---Rand Paul apparently thinks the American Empire created the Game of Nations. Posted by: ace at March 13, 2014 05:36 PM (/FnUH) ----------------------------- Rand or Ron? Ron and Rand (implicitly)? Ron and Rand (explicitly)?

Posted by: Margarita DeVille at March 13, 2014 01:43 PM (dfYL9)

182 >>>Whenever Grant mentions Davis' name in his memoirs, Grant writes 'Jefferson Davis, GENIUS' in all caps<<<


Jefferson Davis, GENIUS = Paul Krugman, Former Enron Advisor

Thank me!

Posted by: Ulysses S. Grant, (OG Moron) at March 13, 2014 01:43 PM (stVgz)

183 Our son deploys tomorrow and his ship is heading to the Mediterranean. Posted by: DangerGirl at March 13, 2014 05:39 PM (GrtrJ) He will be fine. USN or USMC?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 13, 2014 01:43 PM (t3UFN)

184 'Tis true. And it will also make a country formerly in love with the USA a sworn enemy. This is exactly what Dear Leader strives for. All of this theater we've been seeing was planned a long time ago. Posted by: Soona ------- I've been half expecting him to send Kerry to tell Turkey it is A OK to bomb the Kurds. They've been pretty strong allies.

Posted by: Daybrother at March 13, 2014 01:43 PM (aclSy)

185 I'm not Ron Paul fan. But saying we should stay the fuck out of other countries' business does not equal Anti-American. Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at March 13, 2014 05:34 PM (0LHZx) A little simplistic, perhaps, but I, essentially, agree. There are some things he stated that I agree with, but no, I'm not a Ronulan.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Rounding Error Extraordinaire at March 13, 2014 01:43 PM (fkPNN)

186 Rand Paul apparently thinks the American Empire created the Game of Nations. Ace, I don't think Ron Paul is ignorant to history (are we talking about Rand or Ron here?) but that these national "games" are not in our individual best interests. Leave these games to Europe, leave tribal warfare to Asia, the middle east, and Africa, leave failing socialist basket cases to South America, and let America remain the country that stays about the fray. Yes, there are times when we will have to go to war. But there is no reason we have to be the worlds enforcers whenever anything we deem to be "bad" happens. Even when we act with the best intentions, it never turns out how we want it to and we just end up getting blamed.

Posted by: common sense at March 13, 2014 01:43 PM (azmhu)

187 168 People in the Ukraine had to know this would be a probable consequence of overthrowing a Russian allied government. They further poked the bear by immediately passing basically anti-Russian legislation. I don't blame them for their deep seated hatred but I do blame them for not thinking past their hatred. I wish they would have accepted the offer for early elections. Posted by: Rob Banks at March 13, 2014 05:40 PM (ODr92) *************** Well the consequences of keeping him in place were pretty bad also-- supposedly he skimmed $70 billion into off shore accounts. Ukraine's new prime minister Arseny Yatseniuk accused the government of ousted President Viktor Yanukovych of stripping state coffers bare and said $37 billion of credit it received had disappeared. Speaking to parliament in Kiev on Thursday, before he was appointed head of a national unity government, Yatseniuk said that in the past three years "the sum of $70 billion was paid out of Ukraine's financial system into off-shore accounts. (NBC News) That's a significant chunk of change for a country that size.

Posted by: tasker at March 13, 2014 01:44 PM (RJMhd)

188

@ 162 - "But to claim the "War Against Northern Aggression" had NOTHING to do with the despicable institution of slavery is... let's just say "untenable.""

 

True enough.  I firmly believe the Confederacy had a legal, constitutional right to withdraw from the union, per the 9th amendment. 

 

That is not the same as having the moral legitimacy to make their case for it, however.

 

But then again, nation-states and portions of nation-states do things all the time that they can legally do, but which are "questionable" morally and ethically, at best.

 

FWIW, I can't remember the exact quote or citation, I know, but Madison did believe that secession was constitutionally viable, though he also warned that in doing so, states would be altering the compact between the states and engaging in revolution.

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at March 13, 2014 01:44 PM (YYJjz)

189 On the other hand, sometimes Putin doesn't wear a shirt, and that's a big fucking deal.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at March 13, 2014 01:44 PM (jhfwW)

190 >>>ce, I don't think Ron Paul is ignorant to history (are we talking about Rand or Ron here?) but that these national "games" are not in our individual best interests. Leave these games to Europe, leave tribal warfare to Asia, the middle east, and Africa, leave failing socialist basket cases to South America, and let America remain the country that stays about the fray. why does he end each statement with the claim that America is causing all these problems, rather than just saying the world has problems that America ought not wish to be a part of?

Posted by: ace at March 13, 2014 01:44 PM (/FnUH)

191 Maybe Putin is walking around without a shirt at this very moment!

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at March 13, 2014 01:45 PM (jhfwW)

192 Why did the Ukrains elect a Soviet puppet government in the first place?

Posted by: Boss Moss at March 13, 2014 01:45 PM (bitz6)

193 I wrote an essay about habeus corpus and Abraham Lincoln for a History course. After a lot of research from many sources, this Yankee's opinion of Lincoln went down considerably. Posted by: Soothsayer at March 13, 2014 05:25 PM (IW1TI) That seems to be the effect of Lincoln research on any open minded person. My best friend who is black, (also a History Major) put me on the path to doubting Lincoln many years ago. He told me that Lincoln deliberately engineered the start of the civil war, and he told me how. It was at that point that I started seeing Lincoln in a very different light. He was too damn clever for his own good.

Posted by: D-Lamp at March 13, 2014 01:45 PM (bb5+k)

194 Did the 11 (really, 13) Confederate states have the right to secede from the American union? How would they do this? What would the mechanism be? Majority vote? Legislature majority vote? Supermajority vote? Is it unilateral or should there be some negotiation with the other states?

Posted by: AmishDude at March 13, 2014 01:45 PM (T0NGe)

195 This is going to end a lot more poorly than the Suez Canal "crisis." Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at March 13, 2014 05:32 PM (jhfwW) What is more worrying is that Putin is going to make it easy for ethnic Russians in Latvia to claim Russian citizenship. There are a lot of ethnic Russians in Latvia, which is a NATO country. If Putin gets away with the Urkrain, he may end up going after Latvia based on the assumption that the NATO countries are a paper tiger...

Posted by: The Political Hat at March 13, 2014 01:45 PM (AymDN)

196

Will miss the rest of the secession discussion (argument, I'm sure it will turn out) because of the evening commute.

 

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at March 13, 2014 01:45 PM (YYJjz)

197 We have nothing to fear with Barack Obama in the White House.

Posted by: John McCain at March 13, 2014 01:45 PM (Q6pxP)

198 Meanwhile, please throw out some prayers. Our son deploys tomorrow and his ship is heading to the Mediterranean.

Posted by: DangerGirl at March 13, 2014 05:39 PM (GrtrJ)

 

My son returned (safe and sound) from his Afghanistan deployment a few weeks ago. Prayer and the love and support of family and friends were a huge help for those months he was away.  Prayer works.

 

So yes, of course, lots of prayers coming your son's way. I know how you feel. I won't say the stress, worry, anxiety and dread get any easier but you'll find ways of coping with it and handling it over time. Reaching out to those you love helps immensely.

Posted by: troyriser at March 13, 2014 01:46 PM (V9ol4)

199 Why did the Ukrains elect a Soviet puppet government in the first place? Posted by: Boss Moss at March 13, 2014 05:45 PM (bitz6) Because the Bear was only hibernating, not dead

Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 13, 2014 01:46 PM (t3UFN)

200 Maybe he's taking a shit! Who knows what crazy things he might be up to.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at March 13, 2014 01:46 PM (jhfwW)

201 162 >>>Did the 11 (really, 13) Confederate states have the right to secede from the American union? Or does this right of secession only apply in non-American situations?

I don't know, it's hard to separate the Confederacy's legal rights from the moral situation.

Neo-Confederates will insist this had nothing to with slavery, but was about self-determination and the rules established by the Constitution.

Which is... well, there is some truth in that. One can object when one feels the rules are being changed without consent, even if one actually favors the new rules (anti-slavery being the new rule).

But to claim the "War Against Northern Aggression" had NOTHING to do with the despicable institution of slavery is... let's just say "untenable."

Posted by: ace at March 13, 2014 05:40 PM (/FnUH)

++++

I agree with you on the "untenable" formulation. The politics of slavery mattered. But, the slave owners in the South only made up 6% of the population, so I would guess that for many of them it wasn't so much that they were committed to the institution of slavery, but objected to having change being imposed by the North.

All that being said, are you saying that parts of a nation should be able to succeed from the nation as a whole, but only if they have a good enough reason? That the right only exists so long as their reason isn't objectionable?


Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at March 13, 2014 01:46 PM (IN7k+)

202 Keep in mind that the South didn't start the war And the reality-denial, along with everything else. Fort Sumter. The whole thing was a fit of Sore Loserman. He told me that Lincoln deliberately engineered the start of the civil war, and he told me how. By provocative acts like getting elected. And such.

Posted by: AmishDude at March 13, 2014 01:47 PM (T0NGe)

203 >>>Keep in mind that the South didn't start the war and while some of it was about slavery, the number of slaveholders in the South was a pretty small number compared to the total population. It didn't? Didn't they invade and capture Fort Sumter?

Posted by: ace at March 13, 2014 01:47 PM (/FnUH)

204 I, for one, love poking Russian Bears...

Posted by: Andi Sullivain at March 13, 2014 01:47 PM (Q6pxP)

205 As someone who has ancestors that fought in both the Revolutionary War and fought against each other in the Civil War I will only say that if you ever go to DC visit both the Lincoln Memorial and the Jefferson monument. I found one to be far more meaningful than the other.

Posted by: Daybrother at March 13, 2014 01:47 PM (UVuxJ)

206 What happened was this: After 9/11, the Left dredged up a lot of shit to embarrass Bush and his policies. For example, the Left, without any context, pointed out how the U.S. sided with Iraq at one time when Iraq and Iran was at war. The Left also pointed how the U.S. under Reagan/Bush had "trained and armed Osama bin Laden." When young people heard this, it did not make sense. So they gladly received Ron Paul's message. Ron Paul, for his part, offers no context just talking points, even though he knows history. You really can't blame the 20-somethings for being jaded with U.S. foreign policy when a) they are ignorant to the whole history of facts, b) on the surface, U.S. foreign policy is a big huge mess with a questionable track record of allies.

Posted by: Soothsayer at March 13, 2014 01:48 PM (IW1TI)

207 Ace, I don't think Ron Paul is ignorant to history (are we talking about Rand or Ron here?) but that these national "games" are not in our individual best interests. Leave these games to Europe, leave tribal warfare to Asia, the middle east, and Africa, leave failing socialist basket cases to South America, and let America remain the country that stays about the fray. ---- I doubt few (if any) want to go to war over Ukraine. I'm really not sure there is much practically we can do. I just want someone in the WH who understands history. I want to be less enforcers and more guards. Is this splitting hairs? Peace through strength. Not peace through aggression. Nor Peace through withdrawal.

Posted by: SH at March 13, 2014 01:48 PM (gmeXX)

208 What if the North had longbows and the South had crossbows?

Posted by: the place where threads lead us at March 13, 2014 01:48 PM (A0sHn)

209

I wrote an essay about habeus corpus and Abraham Lincoln for a History course. After a lot of research from many sources, this Yankee's opinion of Lincoln went down considerably.

Posted by: Soothsayer at March 13, 2014 05:25 PM (IW1TI)

I dunno. Instead of imprisoning them, Lincoln could've had those traitorous Copperhead bastards shot and hung en masse and the world would've been just fine without them.

Posted by: troyriser at March 13, 2014 01:48 PM (V9ol4)

210 Posted by: tasker at March 13, 2014 05:44 PM (RJMhd) My point is you have to give elections a chance before you jump to revolution in a western democracy. That's the whole point of that system.

Posted by: Rob Banks at March 13, 2014 01:48 PM (ODr92)

211 Are you guys really gonna argue the Civil War? Two major international crises -- Putin massing tanks on the Ukrainian border and World Most Mysterious Plan Vanishing -- and you're gonna argue the Civil War? Again?

Posted by: Costanza Defense at March 13, 2014 01:48 PM (ZPrif)

212 We should bomb them.

Posted by: John McCain at March 13, 2014 01:48 PM (gorVZ)

213 Unlike Lenin and Stalin, who were clearly both Russian patriots, even though Stalin, unlike his wife, Alleluyeva, wasn't even a Russian, Putin is definitely not a Russian patriot.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at March 13, 2014 01:49 PM (jhfwW)

214 Ron Paul's face always reminds me of some type of ferret.


Which take us directly to weasels.

Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at March 13, 2014 01:49 PM (si68n)

215 My son returned (safe and sound) from his Afghanistan deployment a few weeks ago. Prayer and the love and support of family and friends were a huge help for those months he wasaway. Prayer works. Posted by: troyriser at March 13, 2014 05:46 PM (V9ol4) I'm so glad your son is home safely. Please convey my deepest and most sincere thanks to him for his service. And yes, where would we be without prayer?

Posted by: grammie winger at March 13, 2014 01:49 PM (oMKp3)

216 why does he end each statement with the claim that America is causing all these problems, rather than just saying the world has problems that America ought not wish to be a part of? ---- Why does a scorpion sting? Its in his nature.

Posted by: SH at March 13, 2014 01:49 PM (gmeXX)

217 It's stupid when said out of either mouth. Posted by: ace at March 13, 2014 05:37 PM (/FnUH) Whether or not that is our intent, it's a little hard not to notice that most times we try to help people (and lets be honest, we're usually trying to keep "our guy" in power -- which in and of itself isn't a problem...) we end up getting blamed by the demagogues and tin hat dictators that replace "our guy," and the people don't end up any better off then they were before hand. So while I think we usually have good and logical intentions, there are too many variables for us to accurately predict the outcome, and we usually end up back at square one. And no, I don't think everyone would love us if we "changed our ways" we're an easy target to demagogue -- that won't change. But why waste all of the effort if the results rarely seem worth it?

Posted by: common sense at March 13, 2014 01:49 PM (azmhu)

218 I doubt few (if any) want to go to war over Ukraine. I'm really not sure there is much practically we can do. Well sure. Now. But President Smart Diplomacy and his Easy button were supposed to prevent all this.

Posted by: AmishDude at March 13, 2014 01:49 PM (T0NGe)

219 Courtesy of the Cato Institute. Posted by: not neo just conservative at March 13, 2014 05:25 PM (MNXL5) That Lincoln was willing to use slavery as a bargaining chip simply doesn't register with those who claim it was the cause of the war. What CAUSED the war was the South firing on Ft. Sumter. That "The war is about slavery" stuff came up later. Much later. Well sure. You get 600,000 people killed, you better have a damned good reason, even if you have to conjure it up after the fact.

Posted by: D-Lamp at March 13, 2014 01:49 PM (bb5+k)

220 Lincoln's genocide had nothing to do with slavery. You could get that much from any 111 History course.

Posted by: Boss Moss at March 13, 2014 01:49 PM (bitz6)

221 Are you guys really gonna argue the Civil War? Two major international crises -- Putin massing tanks on the Ukrainian border and World Most Mysterious Plan Vanishing -- and you're gonna argue the Civil War? Again? Posted by: Costanza Defense at March 13, 2014 05:48 PM (ZPrif) Your point being?

Posted by: Zombie Jefferson Davis at March 13, 2014 01:50 PM (AymDN)

222 >>>He told me that Lincoln deliberately engineered the start of the civil war, and he told me how. in addition, Lincoln hadn't outlawed slavery at that point or anything. But of course it was coming -- but that was true whether or not Lincoln was president. There was a game going on regarding making one new Slave state for each new Free state, to make sure the south's slavery would never be made illegal by constitutional amendment. But it was becoming more obvious that almost all the new states would in fact be Free, and some point that the Constitution *would* be amended. The south's secession was in anticipation of that inevitability. So yeah, it was about secession, and Lincoln didn't "engineer" Sumter being attacked. Slavery was wrong. Period. It should have been squelched earlier; it would have been outlawed, Lincoln or no Lincoln, in 30-50 years anyway. It's kind of crazy that at this late date it still has to be said.

Posted by: ace at March 13, 2014 01:50 PM (/FnUH)

223 You know the snorkeling around the Dry Tortugas is-- fantastic! It's also where they locked up MUDD. (just trying to inject something new into the Civil War debate.)

Posted by: tasker at March 13, 2014 01:50 PM (RJMhd)

224 Two major international crises -- Putin massing tanks on the Ukrainian border and World Most Mysterious Plan Vanishing -- and you're gonna argue the Civil War? Again? Posted by: Costanza Defense at March 13, 2014 05:48 PM (ZPrif) And while we are at it: Jackie Robinson was out at home plate when Yogi tagged him

Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 13, 2014 01:50 PM (t3UFN)

225 That the right only exists so long as their reason isn't objectionable? Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at March 13, 2014 05:46 PM (IN7k+) When a definition of a Right, is something you always have... and should not have to explain... Ergo, making succession NOT a Right... Even though the declaration of Independence (although not the legal document the Constitution) talks about that very subject.

Posted by: Romeo13 at March 13, 2014 01:50 PM (84gbM)

226 You guys want to do us a solid , take Quebec off our hands .

Posted by: Canada at March 13, 2014 01:50 PM (XWw96)

227 Putin runs on pure hatred. There is no other way to understand him.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at March 13, 2014 01:50 PM (jhfwW)

228 Didn't they invade and capture Fort Sumter? Posted by: ace at March 13, 2014 05:47 PM (/FnUH) No, Han shot first. . (Depends who you ask, the south was blockading what they considered an occupation of an island in Charleston harbor... they say they were fired upon, so they returned fire. They ended up letting the Union soldiers retreat honorably and then took the fort.)

Posted by: common sense at March 13, 2014 01:51 PM (azmhu)

229 All that being said, are you saying that parts of a nation should be able to succeed from the nation as a whole, but only if they have a good enough reason? That the right only exists so long as their reason isn't objectionable? ---- When in the course of human events .... There is your reason.

Posted by: SH at March 13, 2014 01:51 PM (gmeXX)

230 214 Putin is definitely not a Russian patriot. Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at March 13, 2014 05:49 PM (jhfwW) Why do you say that?

Posted by: grammie winger at March 13, 2014 01:51 PM (oMKp3)

231
Look, Boss, I found it.

Posted by: Herve Villechaise at March 13, 2014 01:51 PM (gorVZ)

232 why does he end each statement with the claim that America is causing all these problems, rather than just saying the world has problems that America ought not wish to be a part of? Posted by: ace at March 13, 2014 05:44 PM (/FnUH) Yes, thank you. This is why I have a huge problem with Ron Paul.

Posted by: DangerGirl at March 13, 2014 01:52 PM (GrtrJ)

233

>>>Posted by: not neo just conservative at March 13, 2014 05:40 PM (MNXL5)

 

If my family member dies after willfully killing loyal American soldiers, you can mock him all you want.

Posted by: Paul at March 13, 2014 01:52 PM (9qDRl)

234 Putin knows that there is 0% chance the US will go to war to protect Ukraine. What would a senate vote be to go to war? 99-1 is my guess with the senile old McCain screaming BOMB BOMB BOMB!! That's Ukraine. And I will say again, Moldova is next. But after that....if Latvia or Lithuania were next....I still don't think the US goes to war, but I think the votes start looking more like 70-30.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at March 13, 2014 01:52 PM (0LHZx)

235 Would some of Nor's supporters come on over to support Rand? Possibly. Would some of Nor's crazy scare off some of Rand's supporters? Possibly. I think it would be a wash.

Posted by: Minnfidel at March 13, 2014 01:52 PM (/rlXg)

236 There is confusion between what the US and Malaysia are saying about what signals were emitted by the plane -- WSJ has anonymous US officials saying yes, Malaysia is denying it quite adamantly. I'm guessing we are not being told the whole story. We seem to be getting some info without being told how that info was obtained.

Posted by: Costanza Defense at March 13, 2014 01:52 PM (ZPrif)

237 The problems would have been easier to manage then with our strength but Powell thought the optics looked bad and Bush I made a Bush blunder by agreeing. Mr. Overwhelming Force counseled stopping when we had that overwhelming force crushing an enemy. Posted by: ejo at March 13, 2014 05:29 PM (GXvSO) And Powell has since revealed himself to be an utter fucking moron and a liar.

Posted by: D-Lamp at March 13, 2014 01:52 PM (bb5+k)

238 You'd think with all this technology that that plane would be found.

Posted by: Boss Moss at March 13, 2014 01:53 PM (bitz6)

239 He's already stolen 5% of the Republic of Georgia's land. Now he's going to steal 15% of "the Ukraine's" land. Who knows what he'll do next.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at March 13, 2014 01:53 PM (jhfwW)

240 Don't worry, Putin is looking for a way out of this so he can save face.

Posted by: Your Betters in the White House at March 13, 2014 01:53 PM (Aif/5)

241 So long, suckas!!

Posted by: TEXAS at March 13, 2014 01:54 PM (slXFW)

242 The Hapsburgs' theft of the Bohemian crown was an indefensible atrocity against religious freedom and if you disagree you're worse than Hitler.

Posted by: A Moron Who Won't Argue The Civil War for Another 200 Years at March 13, 2014 01:54 PM (8ZskC)

243 The thing about Ron Paul and foreign policy is that he's an absolutist on non-intervention. He's the obverse of McCain who thinks we should ALWAYS intervene. Those sorts of extreme positions usually lead to catastrophe sooner or later.

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at March 13, 2014 01:54 PM (oFCZn)

244 Two major international crises -- Putin massing tanks on the Ukrainian border and World Most Mysterious Plan Vanishing -- and you're gonna argue the Civil War? Again?

Posted by: Costanza Defense at March 13, 2014 05:48 PM (ZPrif)

 

Nothing we say or write here will have any effect on Russian plans to turn the Ukraine into one giant squealing Ned Beatty.

Posted by: troyriser at March 13, 2014 01:54 PM (V9ol4)

245 An invasion of Ukraine would start an economic and Cold War again , not a shooting war. Once again economic attrition will determine the winner.

Posted by: Rob Banks at March 13, 2014 01:54 PM (ODr92)

246 Who knows what he'll do next. Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at March 13, 2014 05:53 PM (jhfwW) What ever he wants

Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 13, 2014 01:54 PM (t3UFN)

247 And Powell has since revealed himself to be an utter fucking moron and a liar. Posted by: D-Lamp at March 13, 2014 05:52 PM (bb5+k) ************ Powell did a shout out to Ellen. Posted a selfie and said he was doing them--long time/. Twas trending at reddit.

Posted by: tasker at March 13, 2014 01:54 PM (RJMhd)

248 For the "Civil War had nothing to do with slavery" crowd...ask yourself a simple question. Would the war have been fought if slavery had been abolished sometime in the 1700s? The answer is no. Therefore, the Civil War was about slavery.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at March 13, 2014 01:55 PM (0LHZx)

249 He's probably going to invade America. Mussolini, Franco, Petain, and Pinochet were also planning the same thing. It's only logical.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at March 13, 2014 01:55 PM (jhfwW)

250 There is confusion between what the US and Malaysia are saying about what signals were emitted by the plane -- WSJ has anonymous US officials saying yes, Malaysia is denying it quite adamantly. I'm guessing we are not being told the whole story. We seem to be getting some info without being told how that info was obtained. **** I ventured a guess in an earlier thread that the US might be conducting an investigation apart from the official investigation. If the plane was hijacked and landed, they might not want word of its discovery to get out before plans to launch an attack/recovery have been cemented.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at March 13, 2014 01:55 PM (DmNpO)

251 Posted by: troyriser at March 13, 2014 05:46 PM Thanks to your son and I'm glad to hear he is home safe. And thanks to you, grammie, Cochran and everyone else for their prayers.

Posted by: DangerGirl at March 13, 2014 01:55 PM (GrtrJ)

252
The isolationism streak didn't work when the world was smaller and less interconnected in the last century.
Posted by: ejo




Libertarianism is very much a creature of the 1970s. So the catechism includes sex, drugs and a post-Vietnam era isolationist approach to whatever the foreigners are doing.


Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at March 13, 2014 01:55 PM (kdS6q)

253 Not to worry. Paul Ryan and the GOP are paving the way for more Americano soldiers to fight the Bear.

Posted by: Racist Opposittion Party at March 13, 2014 01:55 PM (Cs2tJ)

254 There is therefore only one rational course of action. Starting WWIII.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at March 13, 2014 01:56 PM (jhfwW)

255

When in the course of human events ....

 

 

...a decent respect to the opinions of mankind...

 

This is the epicenter of American Exceptionalism.  We didn't take separation lightly and we thought the world deserved to be persuaded by our argument.

 

Crimea is going to have a separation referendum persuaded by a bunch of Russian tanks.

Posted by: Frumious Bandersnatch at March 13, 2014 01:56 PM (A0sHn)

256 Pacifism is objectively pro-fascist. -George Orwell That applies pretty well to unthinking isolationism, too.

Posted by: --- at March 13, 2014 01:56 PM (uEMLV)

257 243 The Hapsburgs' theft of the Bohemian crown was an indefensible atrocity against religious freedom and if you disagree you're worse than Hitler. Posted by: A Moron Who Won't Argue The Civil War for Another 200 Years at March 13, 2014 05:54 PM (8ZskC) ************* The Hapsburg's were a bunch of chinless inbreds--which could circle this here thang back to the Civil War or-- Quebec.

Posted by: tasker at March 13, 2014 01:56 PM (RJMhd)

258 At least Lincoln was brought to justice for his war crimes.

Posted by: Boss Moss at March 13, 2014 01:56 PM (bitz6)

259 What CAUSED the war was the South firing on Ft. Sumter. Posted by: D-Lamp at March 13, 2014 05:49 PM (bb5+k) The South fired on Ft. Sumter, when the Union broke their agreement not to reinforce that fort... which was in territory claimed by the South. Remember... Ft. Sumter was in Charleston Harbor... no where near the Union...

Posted by: Romeo13 at March 13, 2014 01:56 PM (84gbM)

260 Opposing Ron Paul is fine. But if doing so you find yourself on the same side as obama, you really ought to pause and reflect for a moment.

Posted by: Soothsayer at March 13, 2014 01:56 PM (IW1TI)

261 Good luck getting other countries to give up their nukes or nuclear programs now, with UK / US security guarantees to Ukraine in the trash. 4:49pm - 13 Mar 14 Garry Kasparov on Twitter

Posted by: grammie winger at March 13, 2014 01:56 PM (oMKp3)

262 Tom Horn killed that kid.

Posted by: Daybrother at March 13, 2014 01:56 PM (KqFcQ)

263 Slavery was wrong. Period. It should have been squelched earlier; it would have been outlawed, Lincoln or no Lincoln, in 30-50 years anyway. ------ You should state it more strongly. It was an abomination. Not only was it gravely immoral, it was a complete offense against the dignity of man and of the founding principals of our country. War was inevitable. The country was not going to wait 30-50 years. It may have ended earlier, it may have continued, we will never know.

Posted by: SH at March 13, 2014 01:57 PM (gmeXX)

264 The Civil war was about States Rights. And what State rights was on top of the list?

Posted by: Rob Banks at March 13, 2014 01:57 PM (ODr92)

265 John Schindler ‏@20committee You know the difference between Russian intel operatives like #Snowden & thugs beating up people in Donetsk? Some get #SXSW feed, some don't

Posted by: Costanza Defense at March 13, 2014 01:57 PM (ZPrif)

266 Fortunately, the Manhattan Project and the Comintern/CPUSA have ensured that WWIV will be fought with much more "humane" weapons.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at March 13, 2014 01:57 PM (jhfwW)

267 No fears. We have Putin right where we want him. John Kerry gave him a deadline! Suck it Ruskies!

Posted by: Minnfidel at March 13, 2014 01:58 PM (/rlXg)

268 Uh, didn't Alaska once belong to Russia? Putin didn't agree to that purchase.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at March 13, 2014 01:58 PM (DmNpO)

269 WWIII. For the Polar Bear children.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at March 13, 2014 01:58 PM (jhfwW)

270 228 Putin runs on pure hatred. There is no other way to understand him. Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at March 13, 2014 05:50 PM (jhfwW) Maybe. But, it's definitely ice-cold calculation that Sooper Genuz Prezzy Girls' Bike can't handle. Funny how the lame-brained Chimpy McHitler seemed to know Putin very well. Or, so it appeared.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Rounding Error Extraordinaire at March 13, 2014 01:58 PM (fkPNN)

271 I wonder how much of Rand's foreign policy crankiness or inconsistency comes from having Ron as a dad. I personally think if him as a liability to Rand. As much as I like Rand as a 'constitutional conservative' I totally mistrust his foreign policy impulses. When Ted Cruz started talking counter moves to Putin's invasion, Rand automatically (so it seems) opposed, stating we didn't need to 'tweak' Putin. I know Obama will never play the countermove game in this situation, so all thoughts of it are stupid, but somebody needs to counter Putin somewhere. This is beginning to look like Czechoslovakia, Austria, and Poland in the '30s. The massing of troops, the ginned-up 'atrocities', the native Russian (then German-speaking) populations 'asking for protection'. Yeah, right. If the EU sits on its good intentions now, before they can get moving it may be too late for Ukraine, the Baltic States, and into central Europe.

Posted by: jclittlep at March 13, 2014 01:58 PM (UNSFr)

272 Therefore, the Civil War was about slavery. ---- Bingo.

Posted by: SH at March 13, 2014 01:58 PM (gmeXX)

273

"Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone 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." -Alexander Stephens, VP of the CSA

 

 

Yup, slavery was really tangential to the whole enterprise. Just cooked up by that negro-lover Lincoln.

Posted by: Paul at March 13, 2014 01:58 PM (9qDRl)

274 Didn't they have a bunch of Crimean Wars way back there somewhere. Occupied Asia Minor, France, and Passable Britain.

Posted by: Boss Moss at March 13, 2014 01:59 PM (bitz6)

275 240 He's already stolen 5% of the Republic of Georgia's land. Now he's going to steal 15% of "the Ukraine's" land. Who knows what he'll do next. Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at March 13, 2014 05:53 PM (jhfwW) And the EU, which now has a standing Army, and Laws.. and IS a Nation State... Has expanded its border over 3 fold since its creation...

Posted by: Romeo13 at March 13, 2014 01:59 PM (84gbM)

276 212 Two major international crises -- Putin massing tanks on the Ukrainian border and World Most Mysterious Plane Vanishing -- and you're gonna argue the Civil War? Again? Posted by: Costanza Defense at March 13, 2014 05:48 PM (ZPrif) ---------------- These things are intimately connected. Intimately connected by the radical, neo-Confederate, terrorist forces behind them. Can you spell K-O-C-H????

Posted by: Harry Reid at March 13, 2014 01:59 PM (dfYL9)

277 After all, Polar Bear children really benefited from WWI and WWII, so it's only logical.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at March 13, 2014 01:59 PM (jhfwW)

278 Ross and Rachel were on a break.

Posted by: Daybrother at March 13, 2014 01:59 PM (5oxPW)

279 Mirror while i join you in your dismay about Venezuela. No-one has brought tanks in as yet.

so yeh it floats out there , but i hope they do their own'self determination' thing

Posted by: willow at March 13, 2014 01:59 PM (nqBYe)

280 We're all descendants of slaves. It's only a question of how recently.

Posted by: Costanza Defense at March 13, 2014 01:59 PM (ZPrif)

281 You know what I wouldn't loose sleep over? If the northeast and mid-Atlantic dropped off into the Ocean. Hopefully Canada would go with it.


Posted by: Racist Opposittion Party at March 13, 2014 02:00 PM (Cs2tJ)

282 India is holding the largest election on Earth I think-- April 7th to May 12 The general election will be held in nine phases, the longest election in the country's history, from 7 April to 12 May 2014 to constitute the 16th Lok Sabha in India. Voting will take place in all 543 parliamentary constituencies of India to elect Members of Parliament in the Lok Sabha.[1] The result of this election will be declared on 16 May 14, before the 15th Lok Sabha completes its constitutional mandate on 31 May 2014.[2] According to the Election Commission of India, the electoral strength in 2014 is 81.45 crores (814.5 million), the largest in the world.[3] There is an increase of 10 crores (100 million) newly eligible voters.[4] This also will be the longest and the costliest general election in the history of the country with the Election Commission of India estimating that the election will cost the exchequer Rs 3,500 crores, excluding the expenses incurred for security and individual political parties.[5] Parties are expected to spend 30,500 crores (about US$5 billion) in the election, according to the Centre for Media Studies. This is three time what was spend in the previous election and is the world's second highest after the US$7 billion spent on the 2012 U.S. election.

Posted by: tasker at March 13, 2014 02:00 PM (RJMhd)

283 I really don't trust this country (as a whole) on a matter as serious as war. the dems will just pull the rug out LIKE THEY ALWAYS DO.

Posted by: X at March 13, 2014 02:00 PM (KHo8t)

284 Ireland has been politically calm since 2000 ( thanks mostly to the treaty )


economically, it's been on a rough downhill slide for almost a decade.  But while it was Good, in the 1990's and early aughts, life was very good for many Irish people. 


not as bad as Greece and Spain--and Italy, home of KnoxMania--but not good

Posted by: ( I learned the truth from ) Lenny Bruce at March 13, 2014 02:00 PM (omBWL)

285 The South fired on Ft. Sumter, when the Union broke their agreement not to reinforce that fort... which was in territory claimed by the South.

Remember... Ft. Sumter was in Charleston Harbor... no where near the Union...

Posted by: Romeo13 at March 13, 2014 05:56 PM (84gbM)

 

The United States government never recognized the existence of the Confederacy as a separate nation-state; hence, no separate borders or territories. The Confederacy could 'claim' Sumpter all it liked, but without legal weight. The only territory the Confederacy held was that which it could hold by force of arms, which was eventually nothing.

Posted by: troyriser at March 13, 2014 02:00 PM (V9ol4)

286

251...If the plane was hijacked and landed, they might not want word of its discovery to get out before plans to launch an attack/recovery have been cemented.

 

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at March 13, 2014 05:55 PM (DmNpO) 

 

----------

 

Yep...that's what it suggests, doesn't it.

It also suggests that the passengers could still be alive and being used as human shields or hostages.

 

Otherwise, why not just go in with guns blazing?

Posted by: wheatie at March 13, 2014 02:00 PM (8quPO)

287 nood 370

Posted by: Soothsayer at March 13, 2014 02:00 PM (IW1TI)

288 Nothing we say or write here will have any effect on (s)Russian plans to turn the Ukraine into one giant squealing Ned Beatty.(/s) anyone else's opinion on the Civil War.

Posted by: Just Sayin at March 13, 2014 02:00 PM (Aif/5)

289 Posted by: ace at March 13, 2014 05:40 PM (/FnUH) Why must the topic of self determination always be linked to slavery? The Nation was founded by seceding from the British. That is the even Lincoln quotes in his "four score" speech. At this time, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and many other Northern states practiced slavery, yet we do not hear endless reminders that slave states were seceding from the British. Certainly the issue was relevant to the south's reasons for wanting to secede, but it's not their reasons that ought to be the topic of conversation, it is whether or not they had a right to do so. The original founders thought so, because they acted upon this principle.

Posted by: D-Lamp at March 13, 2014 02:00 PM (bb5+k)

290 You know what I wouldn't loose sleep over? If the northeast and mid-Atlantic dropped off into the Ocean. Hopefully Canada would go with it.

Posted by: Racist Opposittion Party at March 13, 2014 02:00 PM (Cs2tJ)

291 253
The isolationism streak didn't work when the world was smaller and less interconnected in the last century.
Posted by: ejo




Libertarianism is very much a creature of the 1970s. So the catechism includes sex, drugs and a post-Vietnam era isolationist approach to whatever the foreigners are doing.


Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at March 13, 2014 05:55 PM (kdS6q)

++++

This country was founded by people who wanted to avoid foreign entanglements. Who did not want a standing army. Who believed in a limited national government.

Isolationism predates the 1970s by a considerable number of years.

Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at March 13, 2014 02:00 PM (IN7k+)

292 Aw fuck.

Posted by: Just Sayin at March 13, 2014 02:01 PM (Aif/5)

293 If WWIII will help the children, then I'm all for it.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at March 13, 2014 02:01 PM (jhfwW)

294
 Obama already gave Putin some islands. 

Posted by: Herve Villechaise at March 13, 2014 02:01 PM (gorVZ)

295 No fears. We have Putin right where we want him. John Kerry gave him a deadline! Suck it Ruskies! *** And Lindsey Graham offered to help Kerry handle Boehner. http://t.co/PzlUxACrIB

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at March 13, 2014 02:01 PM (DmNpO)

296 There to disqualifiers to writing true History. Bill O'Raly has both. He is biased and full of crap. Bill Bennet as well.

Posted by: Boss Moss at March 13, 2014 02:02 PM (bitz6)

297 We fought a war 400 years ago to end slavery. It's in the constitution racists.

Posted by: Shiela Jenteal Jackson Lee at March 13, 2014 02:02 PM (/rlXg)

298 I don't really care about "preserving Ukraine" so much as I am against Russia conquering it. And its next victim.

Posted by: Chris_Balsz at March 13, 2014 02:02 PM (5xmd7)

299 269 Uh, didn't Alaska once belong to Russia? Putin didn't agree to that purchase. Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse "And after that was pointed out back in the 21st Century WW III started."

Posted by: History of the Apocalypse 2138 at March 13, 2014 02:02 PM (g0gDM)

300 204

"Didn't they invade and capture Fort Sumter? :

Yes sir, they did.  After repeated requests from the government of South Carolina and then from Confederate Brigadier General Beauregard for the North to evacuate the fort.

Keep in mind the fort is in the territory of the Confederate States at this point.  South Carolina seceded on December 20th, 1860.  Beauregard demanded the fort be evacuated the final time on April 11th, 1861.  They began bombardment of Sumter the next morning.

It wasn't exactly an ambush.  It started nearly 4 months after South Carolina seceded and the fort was located in what was at the time territory of the Confederate States.

Posted by: not neo just conservative at March 13, 2014 02:03 PM (MNXL5)

301 Everyone who doesn't want War with Russia hates the children. Later, all. God bless. :-)

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at March 13, 2014 02:03 PM (jhfwW)

302 uh, the EU is 'supra-national', not a nation per se.


it's all in the per se...

Posted by: ( I learned the truth from ) Lenny Bruce at March 13, 2014 02:03 PM (omBWL)

303

>>>Posted by: not neo just conservative at March 13, 2014 06:03 PM (MNXL5)

 

So if the Crips claim a police station is on their territory are they justified in shooting some cops when they refuse to surrender?

Posted by: Paul at March 13, 2014 02:04 PM (9qDRl)

304 The Butthurt and ignorance is strong with the Yankee.

Posted by: Boss Moss at March 13, 2014 02:04 PM (bitz6)

305 Libertarianism is very much a creature of the 1970s. So the catechism includes sex, drugs and a post-Vietnam era isolationist approach to whatever the foreigners are doing. Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at March 13, 2014 05:55 PM (kdS6q) And yet, Libertarians are also strongly for the original Constitution... created by the Founders in the late 1700s.... oh.... maybe you meant 1770's??? (just kidding).

Posted by: Romeo13 at March 13, 2014 02:04 PM (84gbM)

306 Isolationism predates the 1970s by a considerable number of years. Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at March 13, 2014 06:00 PM (IN7k+) ________ About 400 years if I'm not mistaken

Posted by: Sheila Jackson Lee at March 13, 2014 02:04 PM (0LHZx)

307 My takeaway is that Texas should have the right to succeed from the United States....or vice versa..

Posted by: Dogbert at March 13, 2014 02:04 PM (oKVs5)

308 who Wants? war?

we are only at this time observing that there are similarities to previous moments in history, and what option should be on the table.

Posted by: willow at March 13, 2014 02:05 PM (nqBYe)

309 "And after that was pointed out back in the 21st Century WW III started." *** WOW! I feel so powerful now!

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at March 13, 2014 02:05 PM (DmNpO)

310 anyway I haven't read EU papers for a couple of days.
Just what are THEY committing to?

Posted by: willow at March 13, 2014 02:06 PM (nqBYe)

311


I agree with you on the "untenable" formulation. The politics of slavery mattered. But, the slave owners in the South only made up 6% of the population

 

 

That is like saying that Ford, GM, Chrysler and AMC were only 5% of America in the 1950's.  And ignoring the Tire mfrs, Steel Co's, Glass, Electronics, Leather and Vinyl, etc., etc,

 

Cotton ran the south.  It wasn't just Rufus T Firefly, plantation owner.  It was Mark Twain and the Steamboats running the Mississippi.  Merchant Marine shipping cotton across the world.  Eli Whitney and how many others making Cotton Gins, and plows, and sickles and ....

 

Cotton was a hell of a lot more than 6%.  It was the major export of the entire U.S. 

 

Posted by: rd at March 13, 2014 02:06 PM (D+lxs)

312 My takeaway is that Texas should have the right to succeed from the United States....or vice versa.. Posted by: Dogbert at March 13, 2014 06:04 PM (oKVs5) Word!

Posted by: Velvet Ambition at March 13, 2014 02:07 PM (R8hU8)

313 Is isolationism a solid policy in the nuclear age?

Posted by: Mike in the Hinterlands at March 13, 2014 02:07 PM (DNpio)

314 By provocative acts like getting elected. And such. Posted by: AmishDude at March 13, 2014 05:47 PM (T0NGe) No. He antagonized them into attacking with his letter informing that he was going to resupply the fort with an overland wagon train. It was Lincoln's version of the "Ems Telegram." And it worked. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Franco-Prussian_War

Posted by: D-Lamp at March 13, 2014 02:08 PM (bb5+k)

315 The Confederacy could 'claim' Sumpter all it liked, but without legal weight. The only territory the Confederacy held was that which it could hold by force of arms, which was eventually nothing. Posted by: troyriser at March 13, 2014 06:00 PM (V9ol4) Then by that logic, might makes right... or at least Law (which is historically accurate)... And would then give Russia the 'right' to invade Crimea, as the Ukraine Government fell, and Crimea was recently (in historic terms) part of Russia. Its always fun to talk about something between nation states being 'Legal'.... when the only thing that really matters is brute force... as the winner MAKES it legal. All else sophistry.

Posted by: Romeo13 at March 13, 2014 02:10 PM (84gbM)

316 164 NEO. The South didn't start the war? Ft. Sumpter, bleeding Kansas, Dread Scott... Formation of the Militias (after Harpers Fairy) It was the North who were not prepared. "If he's going to decorate his saloon with my friend, he should have armed himself!"

Posted by: jrcobbstr at March 13, 2014 02:11 PM (OGuBw)

317 "How many foreign lives is one of our Boys worth? I'd say -- and you can say I'm selfish or I hate foreigners, but I'd just respond that I'm inclined to favor my own countrymen -- " As if you don't share that position from Ron Paul's own platform. Provide America a strong national defense. Value the lives of US citizens above the interests of transnational interests. You never did visit his campaign website in a sober state to study his platforms, agenda, and coalitions including the Israelis and Zionists commending Ron Paul's views for national sovereignty and the negative long term consequences of accepting/expecting foreign aid. Ironic, that you're still with "I demand an apology" John McCain's broadcast misconception as if Ron Paul's words. Campaign debate. Media hype. Neoconservative GOP Leadership. Go figure. Regurgitating "isolationist" is staying stuck on stupid, ace. Don't stay stuck on stupid. At some point, contemplation on "understanding" transcends one's own misconceptions, as well as one's attachments to misconceptions held by friends. As for Crimean secession from Ukraine, you sure took your time getting around to that for a post. And at that, only to argue with Ron Paul. pfft. HISTORY makes all the difference where people know who they are and where their allegiances remain. Crimea is as close to Russia geographically as to Ukraine. Crimean allegiance, being over 60% Russian, despite temporary breeches, has centuries in national security arrangements with Russia, yes the warm water Russian Naval Port matters. Economic trade, culture and religion and even the vernacular language is shared in common with Russia. You caught Kissinger's published advice? Negotiate mutual discomfort. It's all anyone can hope to achieve.

Posted by: panzernashorn at March 13, 2014 02:11 PM (MhA4j)

318 John Corzine's kid is dead. He was a drug counselor which makes me think he was an ex addict but no so ex recently.

Posted by: The Yellow Pug at March 13, 2014 02:12 PM (r7mtu)

319 "Why did the Ukrains elect a Soviet puppet government in the first place? "
The same reason the US elected Barack Obama.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 13, 2014 02:13 PM (zfY+H)

320 301 uh, the EU is 'supra-national', not a nation per se. it's all in the per se... Posted by: ( I learned the truth from ) Lenny Bruce at March 13, 2014 06:03 PM (omBWL) Let see... Laws? yep... Border?... check... Legislature? uh huh... Administration and President?... yes... Standing Army? 60,000 strong... plus able to call on Foreign Policy??? yeppers... Sounds like a country to me...

Posted by: Romeo13 at March 13, 2014 02:14 PM (84gbM)

321 Final thought and then I have to go.

I am not and have never defended slavery in any location or at any time in history.  It was wrong.

My point is and will always be that there were thousands who died on both sides of the battlefields of the Civil War and very few set out to die for the right to keep another person as chattel. 

It is much more complicated than that and I think it is wrong for anyone to denigrate a person who died fighting for his Country in a cause he believed in, and most of the kids from the South who died in that war died while fighting for the South, not slavery, and they deserve the same respect as all the Southern kids who have died fighting in any other war.

I have no hate in my heart for the Northern troops who did their job and I have no wish that the South had won.  What I wish was that it hadn't come down to a shooting war that took more lives than any other war we've ever fought except WWII.  There's over 200,000 died fighting for their cause and they all deserve our respect for that regardless of which side they fought on.

Posted by: not neo just conservative at March 13, 2014 02:15 PM (MNXL5)

322 My takeaway is that Texas should have the right to succeed

Dey wust succeedin' when they wust still part of Mexico.
If you ever get within range of my metal-edged ruler, I am going to cut you.

I would not wish you on the Texans, but I hope you secede somewhere.
It would relieve me of the nagging notion that you might be my countryman.

Posted by: Stringer Davis at March 13, 2014 02:16 PM (xq1UY)

323 But of course it was coming -- but that was true whether or not Lincoln was president. And how do you know this? Slavery disappeared in Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, and the trend was towards it's eventual demise. Perhaps if we had held off 20 or 30 years, the changing economics of it would have eliminated it in the course of time. So yeah, it was about secession, and Lincoln didn't "engineer" Sumter being attacked. If he didn't engineer it, why did he send surrender instructions to Robert Anderson? (Commander at Ft. Sumter.) My friend argued that Lincoln's letter to the Confederacy was intended to provoke the attack that followed. I think it's a plausible theory. Slavery was wrong. Period. It should have been squelched earlier; it would have been outlawed, Lincoln or no Lincoln, in 30-50 years anyway. Yeah, that's my point. It was on it's way out eventually, so why did we need to fight a war? It's kind of crazy that at this late date it still has to be said. Posted by: ace at March 13, 2014 05:50 PM (/FnUH) Not so crazy. A lot of people seem to have an incorrect understanding of the history and the principle involved, and it causes serious problems today in light of many people's desire to separate themselves from Washington D.C. The Liberal states have steered this nation into a collision course with financial catastrophe, and people are very badly wishing for a way out.

Posted by: D-Lamp at March 13, 2014 02:18 PM (bb5+k)

324 (Depends who you ask, the south was blockading what they considered an occupation of an island in Charleston harbor... they say they were fired upon, so they returned fire. They ended up letting the Union soldiers retreat honorably and then took the fort.) Posted by: common sense at March 13, 2014 05:51 PM (azmhu) Five Union soldiers were killed during the firing of a canon during the surrender ceremony. (The cannon blew up.) I sometimes wonder had there been no loss of life, would the subsequent history have worked out very differently.

Posted by: D-Lamp at March 13, 2014 02:20 PM (bb5+k)

325 Speaking of horse's asses/faces, via the Examiner and Drudge: "John Kerry: Russia has until Monday to reverse course in Ukraine"

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at March 13, 2014 02:23 PM (olDqf)

326 Cotton ran the south. It wasn't just Rufus T Firefly, plantation owner. It was Mark Twain and the Steamboats running the Mississippi. Merchant Marine shipping cotton across the world. Eli Whitney and how many others making Cotton Gins, and plows, and sickles and ....

There is much true in what you say. But, that doesn't mean that all those people were willing to go to war, to fight and die, over slavery. After all, when slavery ended, cotton was still king. The fact that the plantation owners were no longer able to own slaves did not mean that nobody wanted to buy cotton any more. For many of the people in the South, the bigger problem was the North forcing the change on them.

It like with ace, questioning Ron Paul's formulation that other people in the world are doing some of what they are doing because America is running around all over the place throwing its weight around and imposing itself on other nations and peoples.

Paul has a point. Most Americans would not stand for it for one second if some other nation or people wanted to dictate to us how our country should be run. Correction: I should say most non-leftist Americans, since the left is all too willing to submit to the authority of the UN. But, for most people, we believe that we can best decide how to run our country. It doesn't even matter what the issue is. Even if it is one where there may be a wide consensus that we could be doing it better, we will not stand for someone else trying to leverage us into doing it their way.

Other people feel the same way as Americans about their nation's policies. The difference is that American is hugely more powerful than almost any other nation. Militarily, economically, politically, and in any other measure of strength you can come up with. When other people see us forcing their government to bend to our will, it makes some of them very angry, and it does affect their actions.

Now, I don't agree with Paul that therefore we should withdraw from the world. But, he is right that us being out there does cause others to act against us.

Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at March 13, 2014 02:24 PM (IN7k+)

327 Therefore, the Civil War was about slavery. Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at March 13, 2014 05:55 PM (0LHZx) Bad logic. The war started by the firing on Ft. Sumter. It's first major battle was an invasion of the South by Union forces to retaliate for the attack on Ft. Sumter. For most of the war, the issue of slavery wasn't even mentioned as an aim of the war. That was added towards the end, and it's primary purpose was to serve as a weapon to shorten the war.

Posted by: D-Lamp at March 13, 2014 02:24 PM (bb5+k)

328 Posted by: not neo just conservative at March 13, 2014 06:15 PM (MNXL5) There are two propositions in the majority take on the Civil War and I don't think they contradict each other. 1: Soldiers on each side served, for the most part, valiantly and honorably. 2: Confederate soldiers died for an unjust cause. The reasoning that led Robert E. Lee to join the Confederacy is perhaps the most famous example of why someone would fight for the South for reasons having nothing to do with slavery. I think where people get irritated is when someone tries to add proposition 3: the South's cause wasn't that unjust when you think about it. THAT is untenable.

Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at March 13, 2014 02:24 PM (OzZJn)

329 I sometimes wonder had there been no loss of life, would the subsequent history have worked out very differently.

Posted by: D-Lamp at March 13, 2014 06:20 PM (bb5+k)

 

Trying to imagine alternate futures is a fun mental game but, by definition, there can be no real answer.

 

I always liked James Thurber's parody of 'what if' fiction,  "If Grant Had Been Drinking At Appromattox".

Posted by: troyriser at March 13, 2014 02:24 PM (V9ol4)

330 Until Rand has a sizable record of accomplishment and competence on his own, hus POTUS prospects are weighed down by crazy papa. "Talking good" from time to time is not a qualification in and of itself. I won't consider him for this time.

Posted by: Y-not on the phone at March 13, 2014 02:25 PM (KzHNA)

331 328 I always liked James Thurber's parody of 'what if' fiction, "If Grant Had Been Drinking At Appromattox". Posted by: troyriser at March 13, 2014 06:24 PM (V9ol4) Great bit from Procter and Bergman of Firesign Theatre. Lincoln, hungover, is given the morning papers and then screams at the headlines: "Oh my gawd! I freed the WHAT???!!!"

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at March 13, 2014 02:27 PM (olDqf)

332 Remember... Ft. Sumter was in Charleston Harbor... no where near the Union... Posted by: Romeo13 at March 13, 2014 05:56 PM (84gbM) The point is, the Union didn't wake up one day and say "Hey! You folks are slaveholders, therefore we're going to war with you!" Revenge was the motivation of the Union forces during the first battle of Manassas.

Posted by: D-Lamp at March 13, 2014 02:27 PM (bb5+k)

333 And once again D-Lamp brings the wishful thinking and the conspiracy theories. The antebellum South would never have put up with a slavery ban. Hell, many people use de facto slaves nowadays (below-minimum-wage illegal labor) to pick their crops still.

Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at March 13, 2014 02:27 PM (OzZJn)

334 Now, I don't agree with Paul that therefore we should withdraw from the world. But, he is right that us being out there does cause others to act against us.

Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at March 13, 2014 06:24 PM (IN7k+)

 

Ron Paul also believes a secret cabal of Jewish banker-types are intent upon ruling the world. You down with that, too?

 

And someone please explain to me why that clearly batshit insane fringe conspiracy crank gets any credence by anyone anywhere.

Posted by: troyriser at March 13, 2014 02:28 PM (V9ol4)

335 Meh, de facto slaves is a wrong way to put it. But the point is that economic forces would not have forced out slavery.

Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at March 13, 2014 02:29 PM (OzZJn)

336 Revenge was the motivation of the Union forces during the first battle of Manassas.


Posted by: D-Lamp at March 13, 2014 06:27 PM (bb5+k)

 

You should really stop--no, not while you're ahead. You should just stop.

Posted by: troyriser at March 13, 2014 02:30 PM (V9ol4)

337 The PPRUNE site has interesting discussion of US might have such data about engines running when Malaysia does not. http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/535538-malaysian-airlines-mh370-contact-lost-149.html

Posted by: Costanza Defense at March 13, 2014 02:30 PM (ZPrif)

338 The country was not going to wait 30-50 years. It may have ended earlier, it may have continued, we will never know. Posted by: SH at March 13, 2014 05:57 PM (gmeXX) You have no way of knowing whether this is true or not. The country may very well have peacefully coexisted with the South until slavery disappeared.

Posted by: D-Lamp at March 13, 2014 02:30 PM (bb5+k)

339 265 The Civil war was about States Rights. And what State rights was on top of the list? Posted by: Rob Banks at March 13, 2014 05:57 PM (ODr92) Self determination?

Posted by: D-Lamp at March 13, 2014 02:30 PM (bb5+k)

340 @333 Cause the kids love him, troyriser! /sarc

Posted by: Y-not on the phone at March 13, 2014 02:31 PM (KzHNA)

341 Posted by: D-Lamp at March 13, 2014 06:30 PM (bb5+k) Hey, and maybe Obama will impeach himself in the next few years while you're at it.

Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at March 13, 2014 02:31 PM (OzZJn)

342 273 Therefore, the Civil War was about slavery. ---- Bingo. Posted by: SH at March 13, 2014 05:58 PM (gmeXX) In the same sense that the revolutionary war was about tea.

Posted by: D-Lamp at March 13, 2014 02:31 PM (bb5+k)

343 Yup, slavery was really tangential to the whole enterprise. Just cooked up by that negro-lover Lincoln. Posted by: Paul at March 13, 2014 05:58 PM (9qDRl) You must not be aware of the racist things Lincoln said. I certainly wouldn't have opened that can of worms were I you. Lincoln is just as bad as that CSA VP in terms of what he said.

Posted by: D-Lamp at March 13, 2014 02:33 PM (bb5+k)

344 ...the War Between the States should never have happened. Slavery was in NY State where the former Pres. Van Buren's father owned slaves in his tavern. And working in Northern factories was absolutely dangerous to your health and survival. Women and children slaved away on pauper's wages in the most horrible circumstances of poverty and long hours of hard labor. If human rights for all had been the point of our civil war, then our federal government had no leg to stand on, issuing orders to the US Army to annihilate the American indigenous tribes, the First Nations, for getting in the way of our Manifest Destiny. REGARDLESS of who was bitterly clinging to slaves, the institution was being phased out ECONOMICALLY. The industrial revolution phased out slavery, just as the high tech industry has phased out labor, and the Middle Class at large. Besides, at this point, slavery happened a long time ago, so what difference does it make now? Get over it. THIS matters, and not in a good way: The War between the States was fought over STATES RIGHTS. And the Northern Union proved more than willing to annihilate the civilian population of the South, and burn everything to the ground. It was preceded by Northern Bankers investing in Rail Roads, intent on financially confiscating the South for their own interests. (As if Northern Bankers wouldn't invest in "slavery" -- to build railroads, imported cheap labor to abuse from China, Italy and Ireland.) The Congressional schism occurred as the Northern votes annexing new non-slave States defeated Southern votes (deprived of legislators from New Mexico Territory and subsequent AZ division into its own Territory denied statehood) regarding federal TARIFFS being unconstitutionally designed: applied to penalize agrarian trade but not to apply against industrial manufacturing trade. /Yankee ingenuity./

Posted by: panzernashorn at March 13, 2014 02:34 PM (MhA4j)

345 I love this place for hosting the freest discussion on the internet, but it does have its drawbacks. Exhibit A: this thread. When was the mass migration from Hot Air anyway? 4 years ago?

Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at March 13, 2014 02:35 PM (OzZJn)

346 "Get over it" is usually reserved for the losers. Just sayin'.

Posted by: Y-not on the phone at March 13, 2014 02:35 PM (KzHNA)

347 The only territory the Confederacy held was that which it could hold by force of arms, which was eventually nothing. Posted by: troyriser at March 13, 2014 06:00 PM (V9ol4) The United States could not have held anything against the British, had they been so obsessive as the Union. We owe our existence to luck and the fact that the Mad King George III wasn't as ruthless as Lincoln. Had the British wanted to keep us, we would have been kept.

Posted by: D-Lamp at March 13, 2014 02:36 PM (bb5+k)

348 It was the Jews!

Posted by: Mel Gibson, Re-formed at March 13, 2014 02:38 PM (yhJhK)

349 and thus concludes another edition of Onion Belt Theater

Posted by: X at March 13, 2014 02:39 PM (KHo8t)

350 "Get over it" is usually reserved for the losers. Just sayin'. Posted by: Y-not on the phone at March 13, 2014 06:35 PM (KzHNA) Given present circumstances, aren't we all? Btw, I didn't hear his comeback. "Mr. Obama, how does it feel to be the last black President?"

Posted by: panzernashorn at March 13, 2014 02:39 PM (MhA4j)

351 Certainly the issue was relevant to the south's reasons for wanting to secede, but it's not their reasons that ought to be the topic of conversation, it is whether or not they had a right to do so.

The original founders thought so, because they acted upon this principle.

Posted by: D-Lamp at March 13, 2014 06:00 PM (bb5+k)

If the Founding Fathers had wanted to make secession an option, they would have established a procedure for it and included it in the Constitution, just as they did the procedures for adding a state.  Those are quite detailed, specific and cover all possible cases.

Secession is, thus, not just a matter of a simple majority of voters in a given state deciding to take their ball and go home.  Even if this were a valid procedure (which it is not), there would have to be a process for dividing the national debt and Federal assets on a state-by-state basis.  Of which, again, there is no mention anywhere in the Constitution, not even in the penumbra of an emanation.

The question is somewhat moot at this point in any case, because there is nowhere near a majority of the population in any state that would support it, but if one wanted to do a trial run that will the test ballot strength of this particular idea, one has only to get a Constitutional amendment proposed and start the process of ratification. 

Posted by: CQD at March 13, 2014 02:41 PM (4iOIE)

352 Oh, yippee!!!!!!! My favorite threads are when we conservatives who ought to be united on things happening NOW refight the Civil War/War of Northern Aggression/War of Southern Aggression when ALL of our relatives who fought on either side are dead and with the Lord/or in some other place./:sarc. I'm outta this thread

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at March 13, 2014 02:42 PM (XyM/Y)

353

You must not be aware of the racist things Lincoln said. I certainly wouldn't have opened that can of worms were I you. Lincoln is just as bad as that CSA VP in terms of what he said.

Posted by: D-Lamp at March 13, 2014 06:33 PM (bb5+k)

 

I'm very aware of the racist things Lincoln said but do not believe it detracts from the greatness of the man one iota. For one thing, you vastly overstate his supposed bigotry. For another, you confuse Lincoln's personal biases with his moral perception of the insoluable contradiction between the equality promised by the Constitution and the institution of slavery. 

 

Another thing, too: the Republican party is the party of Lincoln, whom you and your like-minded pals consider an evil tyrant, yet many of you register and vote as Republicans. Why in God's name do you do that? Is it because the Libertarian brand is so tainted with fringe conspiracy bullshit that no one takes you seriously?  Is it because a neo-Confederate party just won't fucking fly anymore? What?

Posted by: troyriser at March 13, 2014 02:43 PM (V9ol4)

354 332 And once again D-Lamp brings the wishful thinking and the conspiracy theories. The antebellum South would never have put up with a slavery ban. Hell, many people use de facto slaves nowadays (below-minimum-wage illegal labor) to pick their crops still. Posted by: Yoshi, Aggrieved Victim of the White Man at March 13, 2014 06:27 PM (OzZJn) Since you are the one using the word "Ban", I would say that if any conspiracy theory exists, it comes from you. My thinking is that the economics of slavery were going to be supersceded by the age of machines. That slavery was going to fall to the same forces that increased factory production. Machines. The economics of it would have eventually waned. You should read George Washington's commentary regarding the economics of slavery. If he could change from being pro slavery to being anti slavery, the writing was on the wall.

Posted by: D-Lamp at March 13, 2014 02:45 PM (bb5+k)

355 Economics is what the Civil war was about, just like most the rest of war. The South's agrarian cotton economy depended on the slave. The North Trade. That slavery was an abomination was obvious to everyone, including the southerners. But if one plantation or state got rid of slaves then it would be at an economic disadvantage vis a vie the price of their cotton. Thus they would all have to quit at once, that was not going to happing without a big conflagration. And that was it. I think it was Jefferson who said that "Slavery was a fire bell rigging in the night." It took half a century but it was bound to rectify its self sooner or later.

Posted by: jrcobbstr at March 13, 2014 02:46 PM (OGuBw)

356 You should really stop--no, not while you're ahead. You should just stop. Posted by: troyriser at March 13, 2014 06:30 PM (V9ol4) This is my understanding of the history. I believe it to be objective. If the point is unpleasant, well, I didn't create it, I just noticed it.

Posted by: D-Lamp at March 13, 2014 02:47 PM (bb5+k)

357 Posted by: panzernashorn at March 13, 2014 06:34 PM (MhA4j) Very good points you make.

Posted by: D-Lamp at March 13, 2014 02:50 PM (bb5+k)

358 We should really get back to the true meaning of the second amendment and the letters of marque. Let the citizenry have military grade hardware if they wish it (not to say we shouldn't keep and eye on them nor have city ordinances against where you can and can't park your tank). Then, let any interventionists that wants to go crusading can raise a troop of cavalry (see Rough Riders) board their own private warships and go do their own intervening.

Posted by: Warthog at March 13, 2014 02:51 PM (Tm1Xr)

359 Posted by: CQD at March 13, 2014 06:41 PM (4iOIE) That they didn't articulate a process for secession does not establish that it was prohibited. As Madison said, Had they undertook to spell everything out "they would have written a digest of laws, and not a constitution. " The founders themselves sent notice to the British government. Apparently they regarded that as sufficient procedure.

Posted by: D-Lamp at March 13, 2014 02:53 PM (bb5+k)

360 This is my understanding of the history. I believe it to be objective. If the point is unpleasant, well, I didn't create it, I just noticed it.


Posted by: D-Lamp at March 13, 2014 06:47 PM (bb5+k)

 

Objective, my ass. You're being incredibly disingenuous.

 

Anyway, you didn't answer my query: libertarians and Lincoln-hating, Confederacy-loving persons such as yourself register and vote Republican. Why would you do that? Why not start a party of your own and...oh, wait.

 

The Libertarian Party usually garners 1-3% of the vote in national elections. They're a noisy bunch, and very active and well organized. Unfortunately for Libertarians, support bottoms out the moment potential voters actually start listening to them. So I guess Libertarians have no choice but to disguise themselves as Republicans since their own fucked-up ideas about life, the universe and everything get in the way of electing them to office.

Posted by: troyriser at March 13, 2014 02:54 PM (V9ol4)

361 351 Oh, yippee!!!!!!! My favorite threads are when we conservatives who ought to be united on things happening NOW refight the Civil War/War of Northern Aggression/War of Southern Aggression when ALL of our relatives who fought on either side are dead and with the Lord/or in some other place./:sarc. I'm outta this thread Posted by: FenelonSpoke at March 13, 2014 06:42 PM (XyM/Y) The future is often an echo of the past. The issue of the American civil war is pertinent to Crimea, and likewise pertinent to the desire of many to escape the Washington D.C. leviathan. A very important principle was destroyed in the 1860s. The right of self determination. As I said, it's pertinent to today.

Posted by: D-Lamp at March 13, 2014 02:55 PM (bb5+k)

362 The economics of it would have eventually waned. You should read George Washington's commentary regarding the economics of slavery. If he could change from being pro slavery to being anti slavery, the writing was on the wall.

Posted by: D-Lamp at March 13, 2014 06:45 PM (bb5+k)

Agreed, although the process was further along by 1860 than most people realize.  Economic analysis has proven that the slave/plantation system in the U.S. did not make money through agriculture, at least from the beginning of the 19th century forward (see, for example, Allan Nevins' history of the Civil War).  The only financial gains came from the skyrocketing prices of slaves themselves, which really took off after 1807, when the British outlawed and began to suppress the slave trade.  The U.S. Congress passed a law forbidding the importation of slaves at roughly the same time.  Restricting the supply led to something of a "tulip bubble" in human trafficking.

Posted by: CQD at March 13, 2014 02:58 PM (4iOIE)

363 >>>A very important principle was destroyed in the 1860s. The right of self determination. As I said, it's pertinent to today. in 1860 slavery existed. in 1870 it didn't. which decade had a greater right of self determination?

Posted by: X at March 13, 2014 03:02 PM (KHo8t)

364 I'm very aware of the racist things Lincoln said but do not believe it detracts from the greatness of the man one iota. For one thing, you vastly overstate his supposed bigotry. For another, you confuse Lincoln's personal biases with his moral perception of the insoluable contradiction between the equality promised by the Constitution and the institution of slavery. You mistake me. I'm merely pointing out that when someone wants to quote the racist ramblings of a CSA VP, Lincoln said much the same thing and worse. Sauce for the goose, and all that. Another thing, too: the Republican party is the party of Lincoln, whom you and your like-minded pals consider an evil tyrant, yet many of you register and voteas Republicans. Why in God's name do you do that? Is it because the Libertarian brand is so tainted with fringe conspiracy bullshit that no one takes you seriously? Is it because a neo-Confederate party just won't fucking fly anymore? What? Posted by: troyriser at March 13, 2014 06:43 PM (V9ol4) I'm not a libertarian, and i'm not a neo-Confederate. None of my family (except for the Indian parts) was even present on this continent when all that unpleasantness occurred. It just so happens that over the years I have been shown that much of our current Federal leviathan was created by the Lincoln Presidency. I grew up believing Lincoln was a great man, but I have come to realize that I have been presented a false history in order to create this image. Lincoln was as close as we have ever come to an actual tyrant. I didn't realize it before, but over the years I have come to realize this. Lincoln hatched the leviathan that is killing us now.

Posted by: D-Lamp at March 13, 2014 03:02 PM (bb5+k)

365 Just one more thing-That's one of the things I would do if I were a leftist. I would come on a conservative website and make the most inflammatory comments purporting to be a Southerner or a Northener and watch people go for each other throats. Because isn't that what the Obama regime wants to do? They wants Blacks against whites. Rich against poor. Middle class against poor and rich, The poor against the rich Women against men, Northern Conservatives against southern Conservatives and on and on and on. Don't fall into the trap. Let it go for God's sake....the very God who as we Christians believe died and rose for all of us. One faith. One Lord. One baptism. It doesn't matter where you come from and who your great great grandaddy was and in what battle he fell in. And believe me, you know Obama thinks it's all them against us. It won't even matter if we're Christian or Atheist either if we don't worship at the throne of the the great Lightbringer.

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at March 13, 2014 03:03 PM (XyM/Y)

366 Got to love the intellect. Crimea session vs. American Civil War, Ron Vs Republicans .... And as usual I am late to the party and can't keep up.

Posted by: jrcobbstr at March 13, 2014 03:05 PM (OGuBw)

367 Go fight it out in St. Louis with knives and tomahawks, so we don't give anything to the gun grabbers. If you won't travel a thousand miles to kill somebody over your opinion of secession, you have no business pontificating over the men who WALKED to fights like that for four years. You don't understand them or their motives.

Posted by: Chris_Balsz at March 13, 2014 03:10 PM (5xmd7)

368 Objective, my ass. You're being incredibly disingenuous. I say that the Union invasion force was a reprisal for Ft. Sumter and you say that's disingenuous? Have you not even read this part of history? Anyway, you didn't answer my query: libertarians and Lincoln-hating, Confederacy-loving persons such as yourself register and voteRepublican. Again, i'm not a Libertarian, and i'm not a "Confederacy-loving person", I'm someone that recognizes that great damage was done to the principle of self determination by the civil war. Though none of my family had a hand in it, I recognize that one evil was created when the other was eradicated. It is that very evil that we are now facing; a totalitarian government which dictates everything that we are permitted to do. And it's roots lie in that civil war conflict. Why would you do that? Why not start a party of your own and...oh, wait. And why are you trying to be deliberately offensive? You are really far too emotional over this topic. The Libertarian Party usually garners 1-3% of the vote in national elections. They're a noisy bunch, and very active and well organized. Unfortunately for Libertarians, support bottoms out the moment potential voters actually start listening to them. So I guess Libertarians have no choice but to disguise themselves as Republicans since their own fucked-up ideas about life, the universe and everything get in the way of electing them to office. Posted by: troyriser at March 13, 2014 06:54 PM (V9ol4) Again, i'm not a Libertarian. Hell, even Ace knows i'm not a Libertarian. Have you not seen how often I attack Libertarians? I just had a pretty good confrontation with some Libertarians in the previous thread. I've been arguing Burkean principles at this website going on six years now, and somehow you got the notion I was a Libertarian? I'm wondering if you read history with this same degree of care. It would explain some things.

Posted by: D-Lamp at March 13, 2014 03:13 PM (bb5+k)

369 in 1860 slavery existed. in 1870 it didn't. which decade had a greater right of self determination? Posted by: X at March 13, 2014 07:02 PM (KHo8t) You do know that Lincoln and the Republican's plan was to send them back to Africa? Indeed, Liberia was created just for this very purpose. You argue that the freed slaves represent an era of a greater right of self determination, and this merely demonstrates that you are applying a motive to the history that did not exist at the time. You simply want to gloss over the principle that we are currently seeing played out in the Crimea. You want to gloss over it because you don't like the ramifications of what it signifies. It means that the only thing that matters is force, and if you can beat someone into submission, you have a moral right to do so.

Posted by: D-Lamp at March 13, 2014 03:22 PM (bb5+k)

370 Read the Diary of Mary Chestnut. The Confederacy hanged people for selling beef to the Union. They were not fighting overarching government.

Posted by: Chris_Balsz at March 13, 2014 03:37 PM (5xmd7)

371 Anyone who thinks there will be an honest vote on any Crimean secession is 100% STUPID.  Hell, even Jimmy Carter wouldn't vouch for this one.

So the "right of secession" is an entirely moot point.  The FACT is that Ron Paul wouldn't lift a finger to help anyone else, anywhere, NO MATTER WHAT our own national interests might be.  He has never wavered from this position in his entire public life.

The truth is that even Russian-speaking Crimeans and Ukrainians aren't idiots and would far prefer the fledgling democracy of Ukraine with the hope of more eventual economic integration with Europe to the neo-KGB authoritarian kleptocracy of Putin's Russia.  And those who dispute that are either ignorant, or like David "Spengler" Goldman, a recipient of funding to write nicely about Putin.

Posted by: Adjoran at March 13, 2014 04:12 PM (QIQ6j)

372 REGARDLESS of who was bitterly clinging to slaves, the institution was being phased out ECONOMICALLY. The industrial revolution phased out slavery, just as the high tech industry has phased out labor, and the Middle Class at large.

Besides, at this point, slavery happened a long time ago, so what difference does it make now? Get over it.

THIS matters, and not in a good way: The War between the States was fought over STATES RIGHTS.

Posted by: panzernashorn at March 13, 2014 06:34 PM (MhA4j)

Yes, the war was fought over the supposed right of states to expand slavery, hardly something that would be considered by the Founding Fathers one of those rights or powers reserved to the people or states.  Although the abolitionist movement had gained steam by 1860, it was still very much a minority position even within the Republican Party.  Lincoln was explicitly committed not to the forcible abolition of slavery in those states where it existed but to preventing the institution from expanding into further territory.  The states that seceded and formed the Confederacy before the war started were neither defending themselves from any federal aggrandizement nor defending the principle of secession itself; they explicitly sought to perpetuate the institution of slavery indefinitely.


Politicians representing the slave interest had been repeatedly thwarted in recent attempts to extend slavery.  California entered the Union as a single, free state in 1849, eliminating their hope of immediate gains from the territory won from Mexico.  Various efforts in the 1850s at purchasing Caribbean islands suited for plantation slavery were unable to win domestic support.  Although they managed to establish the principle of popular sovereignty to decide slavery in the Kansas-Nebraska territory and sent out men to fight and for the issue, they had lost the struggle for Kansas by 1860.  The fragmentation of the Democratic Party over slavery and the election of Lincoln made it clear they had little chance of ever again directing the foreign policy of the United States or of creating new slave states within the existing boundaries of the United States (aside from what are now New Mexico and Arizona, which were inhospitable locations a long time off from becoming states).

The politicians guiding the slave states were well aware that their peculiar institution had created economic divergence between them and the rest of the country and that they were falling further and further behind the industrial, commercial North in per-capita terms, in addition to growing more slowly in population.  Faced with a future in which they would gradually dwindle in importance within the Union and would no longer wield sufficient political influence to have the Federal government act on their behalf in maintaining slavery, they took the only option that offered hope of preserving slavery indefinitely.  The Confederate Constitution was much the same as the US Constitution except with clauses establishing as fundamental law certain issues that the slave-owners had been trying to establish for decades, such as the extension of slavery into any and all territory acquired, the Fugitive Slave law requiring free states to hunt down and return escaped slaves, the "right" of slave-owners to travel or sojourn with their slaves in free states without fear that said states would fail to recognize the slave/master relationship, etc.

Posted by: DKCZ at March 13, 2014 04:19 PM (kDEap)

373 If anyone subscribes to Netflix, I am highly recommending a documentary called "The World Without Us" (us being the USA) that gets into the subject of this dying thread.
Being the World Police is a crappy job but the the alternative is far less desirable. Ceding control of large segments of the world to China will only lead to a nightmare. So, we do have a choice as to whether or not to continue our role but only if we are willing to accept that the stability, such as it is now, will be a thing of the past.

Posted by: CozMark at March 13, 2014 04:36 PM (AogGt)

374 Getting back to the original topic of this thread, I would no more expect Rand Paul to repudiate his father than I would expect the Kennedy boys to repudiate nasty old Papa Joe. Which is why I could not see voting to put him in the White House. And Ron Paul is NOT a nutcase, although that public perception is useful to him. He is an opportunist peddling a very carefully crafted brand of snake oil which he may or may not personally believe in but which should never be used to fuel the engines of state.

Posted by: richard mcenroe at March 13, 2014 05:01 PM (XO6WW)

375 Maybe I'm too simple to understand. Russia wants to be what it was - a poor, backwards totalitarian state. They want the only warm-water port that's available to them, so they can flex their sea muscles and dream of what could have been.
I say, let them have Crimea. Heck, congratulate them on a smart move, being as their neighbor Ukraine was getting scary or something.
Encourage them to build their navy and sail the seven seas.
And export as many tons of LNG as we can to their dependent neighbors. At a huge discount.
Are they going to buddy up with China? Iran? The NoKo's? So what.
We, as a nation, have to stay strong militarily, and merely maintain our forces, to overwhelm them with our strength. Let them bluster and bellow, spend too much on defense (or offense), honor our treaties with our allies, and sit back and watch what happens.
These former-and-present commie's have had a taste of capitalist freedom for a while now. Maybe they've all read Solzenytzin (sp?) by now. Maybe they just won't go quietly to the gulag this time.
As long as the United States of America at least LISTENS to them, and helps where it can, that beacon of freedom remains lit.
We don't need boots on the ground, planes in the air, ships in the sea - just the strength and the threat that they are there. And mobile. And ready, willing, and able.
Give it time to fizzle out, or blow the hell up. Just don't be the fuze lighter!

Posted by: rick at March 13, 2014 05:57 PM (snYrg)

376 It doesn't matter where you come from and who your great great grandaddy was and in what battle he fell in. Posted by: FenelonSpoke at March 13, 2014 07:03 PM (XyM/Y) One of my great-uncles died of starvation and pneumonia at Andersonville prison. It matters. But to clarify my own views on the matter, I served with Southern boys who came from families with a military tradition similar to mine and who were as (rightfully) proud of their heritage as I am. Good for them. I shared a bond with them, knowing their people came from a similar history. That said, I think this 'Lincoln as tyrant' meme is intolerable and needs to be countered wherever it appears. If Lincoln was a tyrant, old Jeff Davis would not have survived to write his precious 'History of the Confederate States' and old Bob Lee would never have lived long enough to preside over Washington College. Lincoln did all he could to save the Union, and did, and you neo-confederates, with your 'War of Northern Aggression' bullshit, can all go to hell.

Posted by: troyriser at March 13, 2014 06:17 PM (ptcFO)

377 #375

Once I saw mountains angry,
And ranged in battle-front.
Against them stood a little man;
Aye, he was no bigger than my finger.
I laughed, and spoke to one near me,
"Will he prevail?"
"Surely," replied this other;
"His grandfathers beat them many times."
Then did I see much virtue in grandfathers --
At least, for the little man
Who stood against the mountains.  -- Stephen Crane

Posted by: Richard McEnroe at March 13, 2014 06:31 PM (XO6WW)

378

Posted by: Richard McEnroe at March 13, 2014 10:31 PM (XO6WW)

 

Yeah, I know Crane, and if your point was sarcasm, how does it feel for you and your neo-confederate, 'Lincoln was a tyrant' pals to be ideologically aligned with John Wilkes Booth? 

 

Sic Semper Tyrannis, amirite?

Posted by: troyriser at March 14, 2014 06:25 AM (gNlvW)

Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
311kb generated in CPU 0.223, elapsed 0.3572 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.3068 seconds, 506 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Support





Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!


Contact

Change the At to "@" and the DOT to "."




Intermarkets' Privacy Policy
Support


Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!


Search Thingy



Archives

Monthly Traffic

  • Pages: 94471
  • Files: 470
  • Bytes: 3.1G
  • CPU Time: 175:34
  • Queries: 3600625

Content

  • Posts: 22824
  • Comments: 5953260

Feeds


RSS 2.0 Atom 1.0