Rage. Probably political rage. Maybe just personal rage. Lots of sarcasm and cynicism. Also pretty pictures.
Are you kidding me with this guy?
It amuses me to no end when white folks laud the Declaration of Independence — with all of its lofty rhetoric about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness — all the while stoically ignoring that all that happy-happy-joy-joy talk didn’t apply to the Africans whites dragged to this country and enslaved.
So when I see the tiny wizened messiah talking about the Civil War and lamenting all the liberty that was lost as a result of the war, I laugh bitterly. When I hear him talking about goooooold! and ending the Fed, I begin banging my head against the closest wall.
Dude is so out of touch with the 21st century, I’m starting to wonder if he’s some sort of time traveler who crawled through the Rift and has managed somehow to amass Paul-lovers and the Paul-curious from each end of the political spectrum, and everything in between. Everyone from Katrina vanden Heuvel and Glenn Greenwald to David Duke and Stormfront are singing this guy’s praises, in some fashion or another (but not necessarily endorsing him. *wink wink*)
I find it fascinating and more than a little unsettling.
Here is Ron Paul giving a speech about how the South was right, and the Civil War was awful because it destroyed “individual choice.” Never mind “individual choice” vis-à-vis the enslaved; they weren’t people and thus could lay no claim to “individuality” or “liberty.” What Paul means by “individual choice,” is “white men’s (specifically white property-owning men) individual choice.”
Just look at this silly little man, standing proudly in front of a Confederate flag talking about the enslavement of black people in transactional terms. In the Ron Paul Gospel, adherence to the quintessential American values of “individual choice and” “liberty” would have required the Yankees to buy the slaves’ freedom. A detestable notion, to be sure, but also historically inaccurate since, as we all know, the South started it.
Ultimately, when it comes to black people, the world “liberty” seems to disappear from Paul’s vocabulary. Funny, that.
“China Jon.” Need we say more? A warning to all that the message in this video is fairly offensive towards Asians, but it’s worth noting that, though the person who released it goes by the YouTube handle “NHLiberty4Paul,” Paul himself is against the ad. For those not watching, the ad makes reference to Huntsman’s adoptive daughters (from China) and shows the presidential candidate speaking in Mandarin Chinese. ”I haven’t look at it, but I understand it’s an ugly ad, and I’ve disavowed it,” Paul said. “Obviously, it was way, way out order.” (EDIT: Apologies for the incorrect video at first — our wi-fi crapped out at the exact wrong time.) source
Holy Shit. That’s a doozy. Can’t even quantify the amount of offensiveness in that one.
In fact, many of Ron Paul’s newest supporters on the left look strikingly like the majority of the ones on the right who have been following him for years: the kinds of people whose lives won’t be directly affected by all those pesky social conservative policies Paul would seek to enact as president, either due to their race, class, gender or sexual orientation.
And so, to the women who worry they’d be left without access to reproductive healthcare, immigrants who need to see a doctor or understand a government form (like an immigration form), African Americans who rightly wonder what this country would look like in the absence of a civil rights act, and LGBT people who would like to get married and get access to the rights straight Americans take for granted on a daily basis, all are told, again, to wait: there are more important issues to talk about, more important problems to be solved, more life-or-death situations that we’re simply ignoring out of selfishness.
They were against the involvement [in Libya] before they were for it.
Talking Points Memo commenter on the site’s article “Barack Who? GOP 2012 Candidates Respond To Qaddafi’s Fall By Writing Obama Out Of History.” In fact, only Rick Santorum mentioned President Obama in his statements on the Libyan rebels’ capture of the Mediterranean nation’s capital, Tripoli.
A quick rundown, courtesy of TPM and others, on where each Republican presidential candidate stands on Libya:
Michele Bachmann: Opposed the Libya intervention from the outset and said yesterday she is “hopeful that our intervention there is about to end” and that Libya will become a partner for the international community.
Jon Huntsman: Huntsman had nice things to say about the fall of the world’s longest-reigning dictator, Muammar Qaddafi, but doesn’t mention that he was against the intervention in the first place.
Rick Perry: Called the end of the Qaddafi regime a “cause for cautious celebration” in a cautiously-worded statement that was the first from GOP contenders to hit the news yesterday.
Mitt Romney: Called on the new Libya government to extradite the mastermind behind the Lockerbie bombings, who was repatriated to Libya from an Irish jail last summer because he was allegedly dying from illness.
Rick Santorum: Does, finally, mention Obama in saying he had “little to do with this triumph.” He has previously called the situation in Libya a “morass” and, as a fervent supporter of Israel, noted “[a]s we have seen in Egypt, the euphoria of toppling a dictator does not always result in more security for us and our allies in the region.”
Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain all have yet to comment on the developments in Libya.
- Wonder how President Obama is reacting? “Cautiously victorious,” the New York Times writes.
- Want to donate money to the Libyan situation? The United Nations’ High Council on Refugees have established a fund to help support the more than one million people who have fled the country during the fighting.