Ron Paul's we-should-mind-our-own-business, out-of-Afghanistan lines are generally applause lines, but last night he got booed by the same people who were purportedly whooping it up over letting emergency department patients expire on the concrete for lack of employer-paid health insurance. I suppose that if you are credulous you'll believe that this proves the Tea Party, whatever that is, wants America to forgo its allegience to the three laws of robotics and return forever to some kind of post-Reconstruction frontier phase that resembles Night of the Living House on the Pararie or something, a sort of crackpot Hobbesian Hills-Have-Eyes Island of the Blue Dolphins pastiche in which each of us is ultimately and irrevocably alone. Personally, it sounded like a little gaggle of plants to me; well, I've been to one world fair a picnic and a rodeo and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones. You sure you got today's code? The whole thing is out of character and extremely convenient. We believe in nothing.
31 comments:
What an idiot Paul is. "Congressman, are you saying society should just let him die?" Who answers a question like that at face value?
"Congressman, when did you stop beating your wife?"
"I haven't beat my wife in over forty years."
Take a lesson from Romney, at least. Romney can waffle like a pro.
Maybe it's time catching up with him, but Paul sounds less cogent with each successive tilt at the windmill. He sounds like a random collection of libertarian talking points, a chatbot powered by a Google spider scraping the Reason.com comments board from 1999. "Welfarism and socialism." "Assume responsibility for ourselves." Oh, now I get it.
And he's the guy I like.
You're right! A group of dudes who practically worship torturers and war criminals, and who applauded last week at 234 state executions, couldn't possibly derive satisfaction from an innocent's undeserved suffering.
Sure, everything on TV is fake, but also, there are some sick people in the Republican base (which is what anybody at a CNN/TeaPartyExpress presidential debate is).
ron paul hasn't been the same since bruno.
Hm. I believe the applause line was "left to die," not "employer-paid healthcare is a grievous system." It's arguable whether there is such a thing as the tea party, or whether the cheering individuals are representative of such a thing, but, like, surely this cheering at the prospect of someone else's death isn't like, some baffling anomaly. Cruise missile liberals from the President on down to your neighbor Earl do it all the time; why should tea party individuals be exempt from the same behavior, let alone my contempt?
Its God's will after all.
Maybe they thought he said Kiln People when he said "killin' people". I've made that mistake, it was awkward.
It's not unique to tea party buffoons, we are a grotesquely punitive people. We love to see people suffer for any failing , as we treat all failings as failures of character.
IOZ, the "Tea Party" has never been anything more than a gaggle of particularly excitable Republicans, and Republicans have always had a hard-on for seeing other people die, especially if those other people are poor dark-skinned strangers. You've (admirably) spent a lot of time pointing out that Democrats are much the same, and good for you, but the idea that lust for murder is somehow less likely to be found among the necrophiliac 9/11-humpers of the far right in blinkered at best.
I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die.
It should be awhile
Before I see Dr. Death
So it would sure be nice
If I could get my breath
Well I'm not the crying
nor the whining kind
'til I hear the whistle
of the 309.
Of the 309
Of the 309
Put me in my box on the the 309
Take me to the depot
Put me to bed
Blow an eletric fan
on my gnarly old head
Everybody take a look
See I'm doin' fine
Then load my box
on the 309
And the notion that applause for Paul's anti-war lines indicate anything redeeming about the "Tea Party," the Republican base, or the American public in general, is naive. Kucinich and Gravel routinely got cheers for similar lines, and remained nothing more than a sideshow in a process designed to steer their supporters into the arms of their party's more orthodox imperialists. Paul is not representative of any greater anti-imperialist wing of the GOP; hell, the "leave them to die" sentiment isn't even in contradiction with the popularity of Paul's antiwar line, since most Americans, having been told that the Empire is helping the poor brown savages of the third world, turn against war through the looking-glass logic of "why are they spending my money on these towelheads?"
The obsession with Ron Paul in these quarters is baffling to me. However much he may talk about ending the wars and the prison state, he's a feverish defender of the system that maintains the wars and the prison state and gave rise to them; however much he talks about liberty, he zealously maintains that the million and counting immigrants Obama has expelled from this country aren't nearly enough; however much he may be hated by Matthew Yglesias and Amanda Marcotte, he remains an authoritarian asshole, and if elected would be the same species of monster as any of his predecessors: namely, an American president. You don't topple the state by electing nicer-sounding statists; if you're going to endorse that line, you might as well become a liberal.
Christopher M---
You've got it backwards. Republicans are like the kid who upbraids his dad in the classic anti-drug commercial---"I learned it from watching YOU!". Compared with Wilson, FDR, Truman, and LBJ, George W. was a mere piker. Now Obama with drones, hit squads, and regime changes seeks to restore his party's traditional greatness.
Oh, Inkberrow, I want to agree with you here, since I love a good perspective shift when it comes to American's thirst for blood, but you're kinda leaving out the American Civil War and the butchery of the American natives, of which every Othered enemy is but a mere reflection.
Oh wait. You thought that shit was for civilization or something, right? Okay, just bash Dems. I thought you were taking a long view.
In what way is that "backwards"? There's no distinction between the two parties, except in terms of branding.
Christopher M., you remind me of my own steadfast insistence, right through my teenage years, that Bananarama was my penis.
You know how I can tell if these gadfly types are the real deal or not? If they still draw breath. Anyone operating integritously within a corrupt system will either adapt, be purged, or die.
Christopher M.---
In branding....and in body counts.
Cuneyt---
I deliberately stayed in modern times, the rest being necessary, legitimate, and organic prologue. Shoot, in the Israel thread below you might as well try to complain about modern-day notions of Palestinian rights having been built on a foundation of centuries of Islamic militarist expansion and subjugation or something! It's all good.
Goldie, how many times have I told you guys I don't want no horsin' around on the airplane?
IOZ, you get boring when you're trying too hard to quip.
Combination miniature rooshan phrase book and bible.
Drop your panties, Sir William, I cannot wait til lunchtime.
Inkberrow, there's no reason not to admit the Civil War in the litany of America's progressive wars. Radical progressives helped found the Republican Party. Later they (actually, their children) abandoned their grand old party for the Democrats. No matter what party they use as a vehicle, progs are always ripe for any war for righteousness.
Now: killing the Indians, Mexico, and the Maine: those wars were the "bad" ones, the projection of our dirty greed for territory. It is strange how, of all America's wars, the only ones we came out ahead on were the bad ones.
Christopher M.:
He Was Really Sayin' Somethin'.
Leonard---
Bad ones? Yes, the unjust ones. The incorrect ones. Your conception maybe works too for the Wars on Drugs and Terrorism versus the Wars on Poverty and Christmas.
Inky, I don't see us getting anything from the Wars on Drugs and Terror. So in that sense things have changed. Our metaphorical wars have the odd property that they can never end in victory, and that means to end them, someone must surrender. With the sole exception of Vietnam, even progressives seem unwilling to lose any wars. Not even clearly worthless ones.
We didn't come out ahead on the Civil War?
Leonard---
Agreed, just trying to be facetious. The War on Crime too is prosecuted by those who have a vested interest if not in defeat then certainly not in victory. Could be "War" is not always the right trope. Maybe "police action"....
Inkberrow, I might grant the point if the Israelis weren't almost entirely responsible for the Islamization of the Palestinians. Ah, details.
@"So you would let him/her die"
I think a possible cumback to this would be:
"Lemme get this straight. You're teling me that if I don't pony up the dough to Unkle Sam, granny gets it?"
But, unfortunately, as much as it pains me, having come to libertarianity by way of lewrockwell (Paul's fervent supporters), RP is indeed a patsy ...
Capt'n Obvious
Cuneyt---
So Palestinian Muslims are like Conan to Israel's Thulsa Doom? I may have more respect for the social influence of Islam's history and cultural heritage than you do, not to mention human nature per se, or sociobiology if you prefer. You might as well say that attractive women in the neighborhood are primarily responsible for a young man's sexual awakening. It's transctionally so, I'll grant you.
The experience of being driven out, rounded up, and ignored can have interesting effects on a population's cultural and political makeup. The Palestinians were made a nation by the Israelis. Call it Howardian, call it Uplift, call it civilization, whatever. The fact is that nationalism in all its forms, first independent of religion, and then increasingly Islamized, was propagated among the Palestinians through their interactions with the full-blown nationalism of Zionism. Islam was a majority faith but not the primary faith of the Palestinians. Their experience over the last few decades changed that.
That is what I am saying. When I talk of Christianity among the Palestinians, I usually get a blank stare, but I don't think you're ignorant so much as willfully difficult, probably to teach me something, what I don't precisely know.
Post a Comment